GHULAM NABI AND 26 Others vs Seth MUHAMMAD YAQUB AND 4 Other
This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' regular first appeal regarding a suit for specific performance of a property sale contract. The property in question was valued at Rs. 1,35,000. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the petitioners filed a civil miscellaneous application requesting the conversion of the petition into an appeal as of right. The core legal question was whether the petition could be converted into an appeal under Article 185(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, given the valuation of the subject matter, and whether such an appeal was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court, noting that the valuation exceeded the threshold for an appeal as of right and that no limitation period was prescribed for such conversion under the Limitation Act or the Supreme Court Rules, allowed the application. The Court held that the petition should be treated as an appeal, directing the payment of requisite court fees and security deposits, thereby establishing that a petition for special leave may be converted into an appeal as of right where the statutory valuation criteria are met and no limitation bar exists.
- Can a petition for special leave to appeal be converted into an appeal as of right if the subject matter valuation meets the constitutional threshold?
- Is there a prescribed period of limitation for converting a petition for special leave into an appeal as of right under the Supreme Court Rules?
- Article 185(2), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-Seth Muhammad Yaqub (plaintiff) filed a suit for the specific performance on the basis of a contract for the sale of a property bearing No. SE-37-R-18, known as Fazal Manzil, situated on Dil Muhammad Road, Lahore, for a consideration of Rs. 1,85,00). The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge on 29-7-1959.
2. The defendants/petitioners filed a regular first appeal being R. F. A. No. 57/69 but without any success as the same was dismissed by the High Court on 26-11-1978, with some variation stated in para. 28 of its judgment.
3. The petitioners on 1-2-1979 have filed the present Petition for Special Leave to Appeal bearing No. 132 of .979 against the same.
4. When the petition came up before us today, the learned counsel pointed out that he has now filed a Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 366/80 in which he has prayed that this petition may be converted into and treated 'as an appeal inasmuch as the value of the subject-matter of this case in the Court of the first instance and in the High Court and in this Court is Rs. 1,35,000 and as such an appeal against the judgment of the High Court was available to him as of right under Article 185(2) of the Constitution. This proposition is not disputed by Rija Muhammad Anwer, learned counsel for the plaintiff/caveator. It was further submitted before us by the learned counsel for the parties that there was no period of limitation/described in the Limitation Act or the Supreme Court Rules as at present in force for such an appeal. In that view of the matter, since no question of limitation is involved, therefore, we convert this petition into an appeal which is available to the petitioner as of right, and direct the petitioners/appellants to pay the requisite court-fee within one month. The appeal is to be mad ready on the present record including the printed paper book of the High Court, Security Rs. 2,000 to be deposited within one month.