Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KHALID LATIF VS Respondent: ALLAH JAWAYA
P L D 1988 Supreme Court 629
P L D 1988 Supreme Court 629
Present: Muhanunad Afzal Zullah
and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
KHALID LATIF and others‑‑Petitioners
versus
ALLAH JAWAYA and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.742 of 1985, decided on 1st June, 1988.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 27‑4‑1985 in W.P.No.179 of 1985/B.W.P.).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑O.VII, R.1‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Plaint‑ Trial Court and High Court decided case in favour of respondents, on the basis of points, not specifically taken in the plaint‑‑Held, even if plaint had not been properly drafted and there was defect in the respondents' pleadings, that by itself was not enough to grant leave to appeal, in circumstances. [p. 629] A
Muhammad Nasrullah Waraich, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain_ Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: lst June, 1988.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This is a vendees' petition for leave to appeal in a pre‑emotion matter against the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court.
The respondents‑pre‑emptors' suit was based on the ground of tenancy. It was decreed by the Assistant Collector. The petitioners' appeal was allowed by the Additional Commissioner; but they ,again lost before the Member, Board of Revenue in revision, who restored the decree passed by the Assistant Collector. The petitioners challenged the decision of the Member, Board of Revenue, in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court but without any success. ,They have, therefore, now sought leave to appeal.
The question raised is with regard to a fact. It is correct that the learned Member, Board of Revenue in exercise of revisional jurisdiction while setting aside the appellate order did not give adequate reasons in support of his order. The learned Judge in the High Court, however, as it appears from the impugned Judgment asked the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to argue the case on merits. The opportunity was availed of and the learned Judge in chambers heard the case "at some length"; and ultimately came to the conclusion that the plea on question of fact raised by the petitioners' counsel was not sustainable on record.
Nevertheless, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued before us that the point on the basis of which the trial Court and A the High Court decided the case in favour of the respondents was not specifically taken in their plaint.
We also afforded an opportunity to the learned counsel to satisfy us on merits regarding findings of fact. But, he continued pressing the technical arguments. Even if it be assumed that the plaint had not been properly drafted and there is defect in the respondents' pleadings, that by itself is not enough in the circumstances of this case to grant leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is, refused and the petition is dismissed.
h . B . A . / K‑60/ S Petition dismissed