Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 645 of 1978, decided on 27th January, 1986.
(Against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7‑10‑1978 passed in R.S.A. No. 773 of 1978).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 4 & 15‑ Allegation of transaction being not a sale but exchange‑‑Concurrent findings of Courts below‑‑Petitioner unable to, point out any defect in impugned judgment by way of misreading of evidence or omission to consider any part thereof‑‑Petitioner also was unable to show why Supreme Court should interfere with a concurrent finding of fact by Courts below‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Madan Gopal v. Maran Bepari P L D 1969 S C 617 ref.
Sayed Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 27th January, 1986.
Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 7‑10‑1978, dismissing their R.S.A. in limine in a pre‑emption matter.
2. The petitioners brought in a suit against the respondents in, respect of the land measuring 91 Kanals and 7 Marlas in Mauza Kot Tahir, Tehsil Jampur, District Dera Ghazi Khan. The respondents resisted the suit on the ground that the transaction was not a sale but exchange between the vendor and themselves. The parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that it was an exchange. The petitioners then filed an appeal which was dismissed and the finding of fact of the trial Court was upheld. The petitioners then filed an R.S.A. which also failed. The High Court dismissed it with the observation that a concurrent finding of fact could not be disturbed in a Second Appeal, if the same is based on evidence, however, meagre. For this view it relied on Madan Gopal v. Maran Bepari P L D 1969 SC 617.
3. We have heard the petitioner's counsel at some length. He has not been able to point out any defect in the impugned judgment by way of misreading of evidence or omission to consider any portion thereof. He has also not been able to show why this Court should interfere with a concurrent finding of fact by the learned Courts below. Leave is, therefore, refused.
M.Y.H. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer