Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN VS Respondent: ILAM DIN
1988 S C M R 1220
1988 S C M R 1220
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ
C . P. S. L. A . No. 292 of 1981
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 2 others‑‑Petitioners
versus
ILAM DIN and 8 others‑‑Respondents
(On appeal from the judgment dated 2‑2‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, passed in F.A.0. No. 4‑71/ B WP.
C. P. S. L. A. No. 293 of 1981
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 2 others‑‑Petitioners
versus
ILAM DIN and 8 others‑‑Respondents
(On appeal from the judgment dated 2‑2‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, passed in F.A.0. Nos.4 and 5 of 1971/BWP).
Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos.292 and 293 of 1981, decided on 2nd May, 1988.
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑
‑‑‑S.21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑ Appreciation of evidence‑‑Concurrent findings of fact‑‑Interference with‑‑Suits for pre‑emption‑‑ Decrees in favour of respondents affirmed in revision‑‑Three Courts holding against petitioners on question of fact with regard to nature of transaction whether sale or exchange‑‑No justification found for interference with findings of fact by Courts below‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Muhammad Mahmud Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions).
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by defendants/ vendees in these two petitions against Judgment dated 2‑2‑1981 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a pre‑emption decree passed in. favour of the respondents side was affirmed and the plea of the petitioners that the transaction in question was exchange and not sale was rejected,
2. The learned counsel admits that the trial Court, the First Appellate Court and the High Court all have held against the petitioners on question of fact with regard to the nature of the transaction‑‑sale or exchange. He has, however, contended that the learned Courts below have relied on oral evidence adduced from the respondents‑side in order to show that the transaction was sale and not exchange. That evidence, according to him, was not reliable.
3. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not find any justification for interference with the findings of fact by the learned Courts below. These petitions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.
M.I./M‑437/S Petitions dismissed.