HAMAYAT KHAN AND Another vs AHMED DIN AND 2 Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the sale of land, where the original plaintiff, Rehmat Ali, filed a suit for declaration alleging he had not sold the property in question. Following Rehmat Ali's death during the suit's pendency, the trial court permitted the impleadment of his legal representatives. The petitioners challenged this order through a revision petition, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, and subsequently filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was also dismissed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court correctly refused to interfere with the lower court's decision via a constitutional petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Additional District Judge acted within his jurisdiction and that his decision had attained finality. The Court emphasized that constitutional petitions should not be used as a mechanism to seek the reappraisal of evidence or to challenge decisions of competent courts on frivolous grounds, particularly when the relevant law does not envisage such a review.
- Can a constitutional petition be used to challenge a decision of a competent court on the grounds of reappraisal of evidence?
- Is a decision of an Additional District Judge regarding the impleadment of legal representatives subject to interference via a writ petition when the court acted within its jurisdiction?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-The facts giving rise to this petition are, briefly; that Sardar Ahmad (petitioner No. 2) purchased 30 Kanals of land from Rehmat A.I, which he subsequently sold to Hayat Khan. Rehmat Al: brought a suit against them for declaration to the effect that he had not made any sale in favour of Sardar Ahmad (petitioner No. 2). The said Rehmat A.I died during the pendency of the suit. An application was moved to implead respondents (Nos. 1 to 3) as legal representatives of Rehmat A.I. This was allowed by the trial Court. This order was, however, challenged by the petitioner through a revision petition before the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, which was dismissed on 25-5-1980 on the ground that it did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Against this order the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed vide the impugned order.
2. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional District Judge had omitted to consider material portions of the evidence. Admittedly, the learned Additional District Judge had the jurisdiction toy decide this question and his decision attained finality. Unfortunately, a practice has arisen to challenge decisions of Courts of law through constitutional petitions, on frivolous grounds, requiring reappraisal of evidence when none is envisaged by the relevant law. We find that the learned Judge in Chamber has rightly dismissed the petition though a well reasoned judgment notwithstanding the fact that the writ petition was, in fact, not maintainable. This petition, too, is misconceived and is dismissed as having no merit.
Cited by 2 cases
- Mst. BISMA SAFDAR vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and 2 others 2010 YLR 1309
- TARIQ Alias TAHIRA vs Haji ALLAH DITTA AND ANOTHER 1983 P Cr. L J 1088