MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND Others vs IJAZ AHMAD AND Other
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court which dismissed in limine a regular first appeal arising from a suit for possession through pre-emption. The trial court had previously decided the suit against the petitioners under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, due to their repeated failure to adduce evidence despite multiple adjournments. While the Supreme Court acknowledged the general legal principle that a regular first appeal should not typically be dismissed in limine, it declined to interfere in this specific instance. The Court held that the petitioners' conduct before the trial court was contumacious and represented a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings. Furthermore, the High Court had reviewed the available record, including the shajra nasab, which established the respondents' superior right of pre-emption. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that the case was not a fit one for the grant of leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, affirming the lower court's decision based on the petitioners' obstructive behavior and the merits of the underlying pre-emption claim.
- Can a regular first appeal be dismissed in limine if the appellant's conduct in the trial court was contumacious?
- Does the failure to adduce evidence despite multiple adjournments justify a decision under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is the Supreme Court required to grant leave to appeal if a High Court dismisses an appeal in limine despite the existence of a valid legal argument?
- Order XVII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from the order dated 10-2-1982 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a second regular first appeal arising out of a suit for possession through pre--emption (which was decreed in favour of respondents) was dismissed in limine.
2. Despite several adjournments (and penalising the petitioners through costs for some of the adjournments), the petitioners had failed to adduce evidence, the suit was accordingly decided by the learned trial Court under Order XVII, rule 3 of C. P. C.
3. Although there appears to be some force in the argument of the learned counsel that a regular first appeal should not be dismissed in limine, however, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that notwithstanding this aspect of the matter, it is not a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. It appears that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioners to delay the proceedings before the trial Court. It also appears that the learned Judge of Division Bench in the High Court relied upon the record which was avail--able in the Court with the learned counsel for the petitioners, and made such observations in the impugned order which are indicative of the fact that the relevant aspects relatable to the evidence were brought to their notice, in para. 3 of the impugned order, it has been observed that the evidence, brought on the record does not establish the averments of the appellant . . . . ." Similarly in para. 2 of the impugned order, it has been noted that as the superiority of the pre-emptive right of respondents 1 to 9 was established by the copy of shajra nasab and other documents . . . ." That being so, keeping in view the adamant conduct of the petitioners which was nothing but contumacious, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
4. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Mir SHAKEEL-UR-REHMAN Versus The STATE OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN 2016 GBLR 280
- SAEED AHMAD MALIK Versus Rana MUZAFFAR ALI 2004 MLD 859