Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAHID SARWAR KHAN And Others VS Respondent: HASHIM KHAN
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Aslam Riaz Hussain Title: SHAHID SARWAR KHAN And Others vs HASHIM KHAN Case No.:Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 1094 and 1095 of 1985 Civil
Revisions Nos. 2159 and 2160 of 1985 Date of Judgment:1986-04-07 Reported As: 1986 SCMR 1241 Result: Leave refused Judgment ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions from judgment, dated 16-11-1985 of the Lahore High Court; whereby two Civil Revisions arising out of two suits for pre-emotion, were dismissed. The respondent filed two pre-emotion suits in the Court of Civil Judge, Second Class, who allegedly had no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the same. However, they were transferred to the Civil Judge, First Class, (learned counsel does not know how and when) who ultimately dismissed the same. On appeals filed by the respondent, however, the suits were decreed by the District Court. The petitioners (defendants) then filed two Civil Revisions in the High Court which having been dismissed, they have now sought leave to appeal, on two grounds which were also urged before the High Court: One, that the suit having been filed initially before a Court which had no jurisdiction the decrees in favour of the respondent is a nullity; and secondly, that some of the defendants were minors whose guardian-ad-litem were not appointed properly. Learned counsel in the High Court dealt with both the points and, inter alia, observed that the pleas were not raised before the appellate Court, therefore, they were not fit points to be examined in revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. However, the learned Judge also made observations about the merits of the pleas. We, after hearing the learned counsel, also do not find any force in any of the arguments of the learned counsel. It is not denied that the appointment of guardian-ad-litem did take place if there was any technical defect and had it been raised before the appellate Court it would have been removed.
---
## Page 2
On the second point section 11, clause (b) is a complete answer to the question raised by the learned counsel. Otherwise too, the same not having been raised before the appellate Court the chance for remedial measures has been lost on account of the conduct of the petitioners. It is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal which accordingly is refused.