Mst. SAT BHIRAI alias ALAM KHATOON and others vs MUREED and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which set aside concurrent findings of fact by the trial and appellate courts in a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction regarding suit-land. The petitioners challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the court misread the evidence regarding the scope of a power of attorney and that, even if the attorney lacked authority over one specific survey number, the dismissal of the entire suit concerning three survey numbers was legally unjustified. The Supreme Court addressed a preliminary objection regarding the limitation period, finding that the petition was filed within time based on the actual date of judgment pronouncement rather than the date of hearing. Finding merit in the petitioners' contentions regarding the potential misreading of evidence and the scope of the revisional interference, the Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the evidence and determine whether the High Court's judgment could be sustained in law. A status quo order was issued pending the final decision.
- Can a High Court in revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent findings of fact regarding the scope of a power of attorney?
- Does the dismissal of a suit concerning multiple survey numbers remain legally sustainable if the attorney lacked authority over only one of those survey numbers?
- Should the limitation period for filing a petition be calculated from the date of judgment pronouncement or the date of hearing?
ORDER
'RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Office has pointed out that the petition is barred by 29 days. In the application of enlargement of time, petitioners have explained that in fact judgment was announced on 21-3-2003 but it only bears the date of hearing 18-2-2003 and not the date of pronouncement. Application is supported by cause list of the High Court with endorsement of the Reader in token of allowing Civil Revision No, 36 of 1989 on 21-3-2003. Reckoning the period of time from this date, petition is well within time. Consequently, office objection is repelled.
2. Petitioners seek leave to appeal against judgment of High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Circuit dated 21-3-2003 passed in aforesaid civil revision setting aside concurrent findings of fact in Suit No,56 of 1980 filed by the petitioners for specific performance and permanent injunction in relation to the suit-land.
3. Dispute between the parties pertains to Survey Nos.573/2A, 572/3 and 597/4 measuring 1.04 acres situated in Deh Gupchani Taluka Nawabshah. While the trial Court, on assessment of evidence, decreed the suit in favor of the petitioners and Appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree, learned Single Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction has upset the findings of fact and recorded a finding that Survey No,573/2A measuring 0.21 Ghuntas, though carved out from main Survey No,573/2 in 1963, does not figure in the power of attorney executed by Mst. Safia Begum in favor of her attorney Khawaja Nizamuddin, who purportedly executed agreement of sale in favor of respondent Muhammad Mureed. It is contended that there has been misreading on the part of the High Court and assuming, without conceding, that the attorney had any power to dispose of this survey number, entire suit concerning three survey numbers could not have been legally dismissed.
4. Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi, learned Advocate Supreme Court has entered appearance on caveat on behalf of respondent No,1 and opposed the grant of leave. We are inclined to grant leave in order to reappraise the evidence inter alia on the above questions and to consider whether the revisional judgment can be sustained in law? .
5. Parties shall maintain status quo till the decision of the appeal.
Cited by 2 cases
- KHALIL AZIZ vs DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, RAJANPUR and another 2018 PLJ Tr.C. (Service) 129
- Khalil Aziz vs The District Coordination Officer, Rajanpur and another 2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 209