AHMAD DIN vs GHULAM SIDDIQUE
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a civil suit for possession of property, which was decreed in favor of the respondent by the Civil Judge, with subsequent appeals dismissed by the District Judge and the High Court. The petitioner challenged the lower courts' findings, arguing that the property in dispute was a 'shop' rather than 'land,' thereby precluding a suit for pre-emption. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the respondent's suit was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the classification of the property as 'land' or 'shop' was a question of fact upon which three lower courts had reached concurrent findings, and no misreading of evidence was demonstrated to warrant interference. Regarding the plea of limitation, the Court held that since this issue was not raised in any of the lower courts and would require the introduction of new evidence to resolve factual aspects, it could not be entertained for the first time in the Supreme Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
- Can a plea of limitation be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court if it requires the examination of new factual evidence?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of a demonstrated misreading of evidence?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-Ghulam Siddique plaintiff"/respondent filed a suit for possession of the property in dispute herein which was decreed by the learned Civil Judge on 17th September, 1971. The present petitioner/vendee filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 15th January, 1972. The peti--tioner/vendee filed a second appeal being R. S. A. 103/72 which also met fate and was dismissed by the High Court on 15th September, 1975. The petitioner has now come up in a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court.
2. It is argued that the property in dispute was not ---land" and was rather a "shop" about which no suit of pre-emption could have been filed. This is a point of fact on which there are concurrent findings o three Courts below and we have not been pointed out any omission o A misreading of evidence so as to warrant interference by this, Court. The next point argued was that the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was time in barred. It is, however, conceded, that no such plea was raised in any of the courts below and in these circumstances, we are not prepared to allow this point to be raised for the first time before us especially when its adjudication would depend upon thrashing out of certain factual aspects of the matter which cannot be attended to except by leading evidence thereon. The point in the circumstances is not such which can be said to be apparent I, on the face of the record and is hereby repelled.
3. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.