Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. K‑30 of 1974, decided on 25th May, 1981.

(On Appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, dated 14‑12‑1973 in Civil Appeal 24 of 1973).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider question of maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal under S. 3 of Law Reforms (Amendment) Act (VII of 1972), read with cl. 10 of Letters Patent.

‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 188‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI, r. 1‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider limited question of maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal‑‑Counsel for appellant at time of hearing not pressing point on which leave was granted but seeking leave against order of Single Judge of High Court for which a prayer was also made in main petition for leave to appeal‑‑Such prayer tantamounted to review of Supreme Court's order whereby leave against order of Single Judge was refused‑‑There being no sufficient grounds to review said order at belated stage, nor it being a fit case for grant of leave against order of Single Judge, appeal dismissed and prayer for grant of leave refused.

Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Akbar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

S.Y. Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 25th May, 1981.

‑Abdul Ghaffar (now respondent No. 1 herein) filed a Constitutional petition being C.P. 346/7 for getting declared certain orders of the Settlement Department mentioned therein as to be without lawful authority. This petition was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide his order, dated 30‑10‑1972.

2. Mst. Noor Bai who was respondent No. 4, in the aforesaid Constitutional petition after obtaining a certificate of fitness filed an Intra‑Court appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 24 of 1973 but without any success as the same was dismissed by a Full Bench of the High Court on 14‑12‑1973 as not maintainable.

3. Mst. Noor Bai has now come up in appeal against the aforesaid judgment by special leave which was granted on 5‑9‑1974, to consider the question of the maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act VII of 1972, read with clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not press the point about the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal and takes no exception to the order of the Full Bench, dated 14‑12‑1973, against which leave was granted. However, his submission was that he should be granted special leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 30‑10‑1972, for which a prayer was made in the main petition for special leave to appeal but the Supreme Court granted leave only against the order of the Full Bench mentioned above, on the limited point of examining the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal in the High Court and not against the order of the learned Single Judge.

5. We have heard the learned counsel at some length but we must say that his prayer mentioned above really amounts to seeking a review of the order of this Court, dated 5‑9‑1974, whereby the leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge was impliedly refused. It is obvious, that there are no sufficient grounds to review the aforesaid order at such a belated stage. Even otherwise, the learned Single Judge in para. 10 of his Judgment has left the question of adjudication on the point of fraud open by holding as follows:‑‑

"The question No. 2, as formulated by counsel for the petitioner is that no fraud or misrepresentation was committed by the petitioner in obtaining the P. T. D. I consider that I should not express any finding or final opinion on this question as I think it is likely that the parties might resort to further civil litigation in which cancellation of the P.T.D. in question may be raised on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation, as such, I do not want to bind down that Court with my views on the points.

In the face of the above situation, we do not think that this is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge.

6. The result is that Civil Appeal No. K‑30/74 against the order of the learned Full Bench, as well as the prayer for grant of leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge are hereby rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.

M. I. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.