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 Leave to Appeal No. 75 of 1986, decided on 28th June, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench 18‑2‑1986 in C.R. No. 106 of 1986).
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab‑ Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S.21‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑ ‑Concurrent finding of fact by three courts below‑‑Decree in favour of respondent upheld in appeal and Revision‑‑Order impugned‑‑Plea of mis‑reading and non‑reading of evidence not sustained‑‑There being no illegality in impugned order, Supreme Court declined to interfere‑‑Petition being devoid of merit, dismissed.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Revisional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑Pure question of fact not open to be re‑examined in revision in absence of jurisdictional error of nature of misreading or non‑reading of evidence.
Mahmood Ahmad Minto, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 28th June, 1986.
By a civil suit the respondent claimed superior right of pre‑emption on the grounds of being collateral of the vendor and co‑sharer in Khata No. 5. The suit was decreed on the 20th September, 1984. The petitioner filed an appeal assailing the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
2. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, vide order. dated 19‑11‑1985. Petitioner then filed civil revision in the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench which was dismissed in limine, vide the impugned judgment, dated 18th February 1986.
3. By this petition leave is now sought on the ground that the respondent has failed to prove her right of pre‑emption on the basis of being collateral of the vendor and co‑sharer in the Khata. It is contended that the attorney of the plaintiff /respondent did not utter a single word about being co‑sharer in the Khata whereas, the petitioner positively asserted being co‑sharer in the Khata and his statement went unchallenged in cross‑examination. Jamabandi for 1976‑77 was produced by the respondent in which she and the petitioner both are recorded as co‑sharers on the relevant Khata; that the Courts below omitted to read evidence on record and also mis‑read Ex.P/4 which raised important question of law. Lastly, it was submitted by the learned counsel that before the learned Additional District Judge the only challenge was on finding of the trial Court about the respondent being co‑sharer. Respondent, however, did not file any cross‑objection. The point of 'co‑sharer' was not even pressed by the respondent. The learned Additional District Judge did not read Ex.P/4 in totality where the petitioner is also shown as co‑sharer in Khata No. 5. Patwari has, of his own, written many names beginning with 'Ghulam' with " ...." instead of full " . . . . . 11 Elaborating the point the learned counsel stated that there is nothing on the record to suggest that " s son of Fateh Haider mentioned in the said document is not the petitioner.
4.We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find no force in them. All the three Courts below have given a, finding which is against the petitioner. This Court would not interfere with the concurrent finding of the Courts below on question of facts. No illegality in the order and miss‑reading of evidence has been pointed out except the one stated above. Learned High Court Judge has observed on paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment as under:
"I am unable to uphold the view canvassed by the learned counsel because, firstly, (the point is one of pure fact which is not I open to be re‑examined in revision in the absence of jurisdictional error of the nature of miss‑reading or non‑reading of evidence committed by the Court concerned, and secondly, the petitioner in his written statement, elected to simply deny the plaintiff's assertion with regard to superiority of right of pre‑emption but he did not urge that he himself was also an owner of the Khata or estate..."
In the light of above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and the petition is, consequently, dismissed as being without merit.
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