Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: HAMAYAT KHAN AND Another VS Respondent: AHMED DIN AND 2 Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Aslam Riaz Hussain, M. S. H. Qureshi Title: HAMAYAT KHAN AND Another vs AHMED DIN AND 2 Other Case No.:Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 232 of 1982 Writ Petition No.
7366/80 Date of Judgment:1982-05-28 Reported As: 1983 SCMR 59 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-The facts giving rise to this petition are, briefly; that Sardar Ahmad (petitioner No. 2) purchased 30 Kanals of land from Rehmat A.I, which he subsequently sold to Hayat Khan. Rehmat Al: brought a suit against them for declaration to the effect that he had not made any sale in favour of Sardar Ahmad (petitioner No. 2). The said Rehmat A.I died during the pendency of the suit. An application was moved to implead respondents (Nos. 1 to 3) as legal representatives of Rehmat A.I. This was allowed by the trial Court. This order was, however, challenged by the petitioner through a revision petition before the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, which was dismissed on 25-5-1980 on the ground that it did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Against this order the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed vide the impugned order. 2. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional District Judge had omitted to consider material portions of the evidence. Admittedly, the learned Additional District Judge had the jurisdiction toy decide this question and his decision attained finality. Unfortunately, a practice has arisen to challenge decisions of Courts of law through constitutional petitions, on frivolous grounds, requiring reappraisal of evidence when none is envisaged by the relevant law. We find that the learned Judge in Chamber has rightly dismissed the petition though a well reasoned judgment notwithstanding the fact that the writ petition was, in fact, not maintainable. This petition, too, is misconceived and is dismissed as having no merit.