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: MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND 2 Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Cheema, Ghulam Safdar Shah, Durab Patel Title: ABDUL GHAFOOR vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND 2 Other Case No.:Civil Review Petition No. 4-R of 1976 in Civil Petition for Special Leave Appeal
No. 185-8 of 1975 Date of Judgment:1977-11-14 Reported As: 1978 SCMR 78 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL CBEEMA, J.-Abdul Ghafoor petitioner herein feels aggrieved by an order of this Court dated 8-1-1976 by which his petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 30-5-1975 was dismissed primarily on ground of limitation having been found to be barred by 109 days. Muhammad Ishaq respondent herein claimed to have purchased-- the property in question on 27-2-1965 in an open suction being the highest bidder. On confirmation of the proceedings, a P. T. O. Was also issued to him on 22-7-1575. The transfer was unsuccessfully challenged in appeal and revision by one Habibullah. However, the mode of disposal by an open auction in favour of the respondent was held to be irregular as the auction should have been restricted to Displaced Persons from Jammu and Kashmir. Muhammad Ishaq successfully invoked the writ jurisdiction, of the High Court which restored the transfer in his favour vide judgment dated 30-5-1975. Abdul Ghafoor petitioner herein moved a petition for special have to appeal against the aforesaid order on the ground that on cancellation from the name of Muhammad Ishaq respondent, the shop in question was transferred to one Habibullah with whom the petitioner had entered into an association and thus stepped into his shoes and that subsequent to that the entire proceedings were taken against him ex parte and behind his back. As stated earlier leave was refused in the first instance for the reason that the petition was beyond time by 109 days. The delay of each day had to be satisfactorily explained. Having heard the learned counsel qui at length, we are not satisfied that any justification has been made out to reopen the matter. Having purchased the property, the petitioner should have tried to satisfy himself that it was free from challenge or even a shadow thereof. Even on coming to know of the
---
## Page 2
decision, he did not show promp--titude in filing the petition. In this background the review petition would be hardly competent and is accordingly dismissed.