Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Constitutional Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 194 of 1981, decided on 3rd November, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 20‑1‑1981 in W.P.118 of 1981).
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Question of fact decided by competent authority on basis of evidence on record‑‑high Court declining to re‑examine evidence in constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Contention that if evidence would have been scrutinized by High Court, conclusion would have been different, held, was no ground for granting leave in circumstances‑‑Leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Muhammad Hussain Munir etc. v. Sikandar etc. P L D 1974 S C 139 rel.
Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan, Advocate with Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1981.
‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from order dated 21‑1‑1981 of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, whereby a writ petition arising out of an election matter, was dismissed.
The grievance made by the petitioner in the High Court was that Afzal Hussain, respondent No. 4, was not qualified to contest the election in dispute; as he at the relevant time did not satisfy the condition relating to the ownership of property‑‑that it should be less than five Acres of land. The learned Judges taking note of the fact that the question of the extent of the holding of Afzal Hussain, respondent, had been decided by the election authority "on the basis of evidence on record" and the evidence "was dealt with by the said authority at some length". Therefore, the High Court took the view that there was no reason for it, "to re‑examine the same in the constitutional jurisdiction". It was also observed that the Tribunal concerned had the jurisdiction to decide the question of fact, one way or the other; and if according to the petitioner it was wrongly decided against him, this by itself would not render the order impugned in the High Court as "without lawful authority". Accordingly, relying on Muhammad Hussain Munir etc. v. Sikandar etc. P L D 1974 S C 139, the writ petition was dismissed in limine.
Learned counsel has in support of this petition, contended that if the evidence would have been scrutinized by the High Court, the conclusion regarding the extent of the holding of Afzal Hussain, respondent, would have been different. This by itself is no ground for granting leave to appeal in a case like the present one, where the grant of relief to the petitioner in writ jurisdiction depended upon the decision on a question of fact. We accordingly dismiss this petition.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer