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. 613 of 1977, decided on 10th August, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 3‑8‑1977 in Writ Petition No. 1038‑R of 1977).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3) a 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Findings of lower Tribunal based on misreading of evidence‑‑Mistake of lower Tribunal being innocent and related to one of the factors only on which finding was based‑‑High Court after having noted salient features of case, affirmed such findings of lower Tribunal‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against such order refused.
Sh. A. Manna, Advocate and Tanvir Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Ch. Inayatullah Khan, Advocate and Muhammad Aslam, Advocate- on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Nemo for Respondent No.2.
Date of hearing: 10th August, 1981.
Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 3‑8‑1977 of the Lahore High Court whereby a writ petition arising out of an urban settlement case was dismissed by a learned Single Judge.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly brought to our notice that the essential question involved in this case is whether Property No.P.IX‑3‑S‑2 which admittedly stands transferred to Umar Din, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners and is not in dispute, and Property No. B. IX‑2‑S‑3 which is in dispute between the contesting parties are in reality (notwithstanding having been allotted two numbers) one property.
After lengthy litigation, in proceedings taken on a remand ordered by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction in an earlier round on 21‑3‑1973, a D.S.C in the order passed in July 1976 gave the finding of fact against the petitioner to the effect that the two number represented two separate properties accordingly the second property the one in dispute, stood validly transferred to respondent No.1 as a result of auction proceedings. This order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was challenged in the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. A learned Single Judge examined the merits of the pleas raised from the petitioner's side for setting aside the findings of fact and after having considered the same affirmed them and dismissed the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had noted in the order impugned in the High Court that Umar Din had made a statement on 9‑5‑1974 declining to produce evidence regarding the controversy but in reality U mar Din had died on 29‑1‑1974, therefore, it was a clear case of misreading of evidence in the High Court and that the High Court has ignored this aspect. He has also contended that the findings of fact by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, as also by the High Court, are manifestly wrong.
It appears there is some mistake, though innocent, with regard to the statement of Umar Din which was only one of the factors noted in the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. There were several other factors on account of which he gave findings of fact against the petitioners. The High Court having noted the salient features of the case affirmed those findings. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
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