MUHAMMAD SALIM vs SULEMAN
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for possession through pre-emption regarding land measuring 63 Kanals and 19 Marlas. The petitioners challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, arguing that the original suit was defective because two petitioners were minors at the time of the suit's institution and were not represented by a guardian ad litem, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the suit was maintainable despite the alleged procedural defect regarding the minority status of the defendants. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court had already determined as a matter of fact that the petitioners had attained majority during the litigation process. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners failed to raise this objection during the civil revision proceedings in the High Court. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, absent legal infirmity, do not warrant interference. The principle established is that hyper-technical objections regarding minority status, which have been factually resolved by lower courts, cannot be re-opened at the Supreme Court level.
- Can a party raise an objection regarding the minority status of defendants for the first time at the Supreme Court level if it was not pursued in the High Court?
- Does the failure to appoint a guardian ad litem for a minor defendant invalidate a decree if the defendant attained majority during the pendency of the litigation?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial and appellate courts in the absence of a legal infirmity?
- Order 32 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- This petition is directed against judgment, dated 12-2-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No,268 of 2002.
2. The respondent instituted a suit for possession through preemption of suit-land measuring 63 Kanals and 19 Marlas against the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners Nos.1 to 9 and against petitioners Nos.10 to 15. Bashir Ahmad, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.1 to 5, out of his share of 47 Kanals and 19 Marlas of the suit property sold land measuring 2 Kanals and 6 Marlas bearing Khasra No,427 to the petitioners Nos.12 to 15 vide Mutation No,197. After successive remands, the suit was eventually decreed by the Civil Judge, Gujranwala, by judgment and decree, dated 13-11-2000. The appeal and civil revision of the petitioners were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala and the Lahore High Court respectively, by judgments, dated 21-1-2002 and 12-2-2002. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that at the time the civil suit was instituted by the respondent on 30-4-1976, the petitioners Nos.14 and 15 were minor and were not sued through their guardian ad litem. Therefore, the civil suit of the respondent could not be decreed in view of Order 32, rule 3, C.P.C.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioners Nos.14 and 15 had already attained majority when the civil suit was earlier remanded for a fresh decision.
Thereafter, they were sued in their independent capacity and their guardian ad litem appointed by the Court was also discharged during the earlier round of litigation. The controversy in this regard could not be re-opened before this Court in the present proceedings.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. We find that the petitioners had taken the objection of initial minority of petitioners Nos.14 and 15 before the Civil Judge. The trial Court found that as a matter of fact the petitioners Nos.14 and 15 had already attained majority and passed judgment and decree dated 13-11-2000. The same view was taken by the Appellate Court by judgment dated 28-1-2002. The petitioners did not raise any such objection during the course of hearing of the civil revision and the impugned judgment was passed on merits. Now, it is too late to consider the hyper-technical objection of the petitioners. The suit of the respondent was decreed on merits by concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the three Courts. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.
Cited by 1 case
- NOOR Versus Mst. SATTAN 2013 PLD 30