Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL GHAFOOR VS Respondent: FATEH BEGUM
1988 S C M R 1639
1988 S C M R 1639
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
ABDUL GHAFOOR and others‑‑Petitioners
versus
Mst. FATEH BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.796 of 1985, decided on 5th June, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 2‑7‑1985 in Civil Revision No.1117/D of 1985).
(a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑S.21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑‑ Controversy relating to nature of transaction, whether exchange or sale‑Appellate Court's finding that it was sale, being well‑supported by evidence on record, upheld in revision‑‑No infirmity having been found in the view taken by High Court or the District. Judge, leave to appeal was refused.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S.21‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Grant of‑‑Fresh plea in Supreme Court‑ ‑Pre‑emption suit‑ Objection raised in Supreme Court to the procedure adopted by District Judge in asking Trial Court to record finding on issues which it had not earlier decided before disposing of pre‑emptor's appeal‑‑Objection not having been taken before High Court and no illegality having been pointed out, same could not be entertained by Supreme Court‑ Leave to appeal refuse.
Ch. Muhammad Ishaq, Advocate Supreme Court and Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners.
Qadeer Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 5th June, 1988.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑In this petition for special leave to appeal which arises out of pre‑emption suit, the main question for consideration is whether the transaction giving rise to the suit was one of exchange or sale. The trial Court held that it was an exchange and dismissed the suit. However, on appeal the learned Additional District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court and declared it to be a sale. On the basis of this finding, he decreed the suit. In revision jurisdiction, the High Court found that the finding of the learned Additional District Judge was well‑supported by the evidence .on record. We can find no infirmity in the view taken by the High Court or the Additional District Judge.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also objected to the procedure adopted by the learned Additional District Judge in asking the trial Court to record finding on issues which it had no earlier decided before disposing of the pre‑emptors' appeal. It is to be noticed that this objection was not taken before the High Court and in any event we can find nothing illegal in the course adopted by the learned Additional District Judge. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
M.I./A‑269/S Petition dismissed.