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. 242-R of 1985, decided on 15th October, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgement of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 10th February, 1985 on writ Petition No. 538. of 1984)
---Art. 185(3) Leave to appeal, grant of Petitioner unable to contradict concurrent finding of fact‑‑No point of law being involved, Supreme Court declined to interfere and refused leave to appeal.
Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 15th October, 1986.
The background in which this petition for leave to appeal is filed is this that the petitioners instituted a suit for pre‑emption assailing the sale of the suit and on the ground that they were tenants of the disputed land and they had a superior right of pre‑emption against Muhammad Khan respondent‑vendee. The trial Court i.e. Collector Chakwal dismissed the suit of the petitioners, vide his order, dated 25th November, 1982 holding that they were tenants only over Khasra No.2844 out of the disputed land which was transferred back to the vendor through a decree of the civil Court and as such they could not maintain their suit for pre‑emption. In appeal and revision the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court was maintained by the Additional Commissioner as well as the Member Board of Revenue Consequently challenging these orders they filed a writ petition which was dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench on 10th February 1985. The finding of the learned Judge while dismissing the writ petition is that the civil Court has already held that the land comprising the disputed Khasra number which was in possession of the petitioners as tenants was to be considered in ownership of the vendor and that that decree of the civil Court had not been set aside by any competent Court. It was therefore operative in respect of the disputed land and the revenue Courts had merely relied upon the same. Since the disputed Khasra number was not included in the sale‑deed in favour of Muhammad Khan respondent the learned Judge declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel was not in a position to contradict this finding of fact. Since on point of law is involved we do not find any force in this petition calling for interference and as a result this petition is dismissed.
M. I. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer