Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SHAFI VS Respondent: IMAM BAKHSH
1988 S C M R 1980
1988 S C M R 1980
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ
MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑Petitioner
versus
IMAM BAKHSH and another‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.517 of 1982, decided on 3rd August, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 11‑4‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No.90 of 1973).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S.115 (1) (c)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S.21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑Revisional jurisdiction‑‑Exercise of‑‑Finding of fact‑‑Interference with ‑‑Pre‑emption matter‑‑Question arising whether transaction was sale or gift‑‑Trial Court's finding that it was sale set aside in appeal‑‑High Court in revision restored decree passed by Trial Court‑‑Plea that High Court could not have interfered in its revisional jurisdiction, repelled‑‑Transaction found to be sale and case being covered by S.115(1)(c), C.P.C., High Court, held, could interfere in its revisional jurisdiction‑‑Leave to appeal‑refused.
Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Ch. M.Nazir Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a vendee in a pre‑emption matter.
The controversy between the parties was whether as alleged by the petitioner, the transaction was a gift or as claimed by the respondents/ plaintiffs, it was sale.
The learned trial Court decreed the suit on the finding that it was a sale. The petitioner's appeal succeeded. It was held to be a gift. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed.
The respondents' civil revision was allowed by the High Court. It was found that the transaction was sale. The trial Court's judgment and decree having been restored, the petitioner/ vendee has now sought leave to appeal.
The learned counsel has contended that the High Court could not have interfered under section 115, C.P.C. in its revisional jurisdiction; and that the transaction was, in fact, gift and not sale.
After hearing the learned counsel, we are satisfied that the transaction was sale and that finding is unexceptionable. Regarding jurisdiction, suffice it to observe that the case is covered by sub‑clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 115, C.P.C., therefore, the High Court could interfere in its revisional jurisdiction.
There being no merit in this petition, leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.
M . I . / M‑561 / S Petition dismissed.