AMIR ALI Versus DAD
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit against the High Court's decision to accept the respondents' Regular Second Appeal. The petitioner's suit had originally been decreed on appeal through a compromise, but during the second appeal, the petitioner's counsel conceded that the petitioner was not entitled to a pre-emption decree under the circumstances. The petitioner sought to challenge this concession on the ground that it was made on a point of law and was therefore not binding. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the primary purpose of granting leave to appeal is to correct errors committed by the High Court, and since the High Court committed no error in acting upon the counsel's concession, there was no prima facie justification for interference. The Court emphasized that the grant of leave to appeal is highly discretionary and depends on the circumstances of each case. Given that the land had already been surrendered under land reforms and transferred to tenants, granting leave would cause undue hardship and prejudice to third parties. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether a concession made by a party's counsel on a point of law in the High Court automatically entitles that party to the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court?
- What is the primary purpose of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction when considering a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order?
- Can the Supreme Court refuse leave to appeal on discretionary grounds if granting it would cause hardship and prejudice to third-party beneficiaries such as tenants under land reforms?
- Land Reforms Regulation
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C J .‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal by a plaintiff in a pre‑emption suit is directed against the acceptance by the High Court, of respondents' Regular Second Appeal. The petitioner's suit was dismissed but on his appeal he was granted pre‑emption decree through compromise.
2. During the hearing of respondents' Regular Second Appeal by the High Court learned counsel for the petitioner appearing at that stage agreed that the petitioner was not entitled to a decree for pre‑emption in the peculiar circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the respondents' Appeal was allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has now sought permission to challenge the concession made by the petitioner's counsel in the High Court on the ground that he made this concession on the point of law. Therefore, the petitioner is within his right to challenge the same and urge the legal point available to him before this Court.
4. A complicated question is sought to be avoided by too much of simplification. The challenge in this petition is to the order of the High Court. The first question arises: whether, the High Court has committed any error which this Court through leave to appeal considers necessary to be corrected. Admittedly the High Court did not commit any error, therefore, prima facie, there is no justification for grant of leave to appeal.
5. The main purpose for grant of leave to appeal is to correct the error committed by the High Court. It is not satisfied in this case. Thus even if the concession on a point of law may not, depending upon the law involved, bind the party, it would not be necessary that leave to appeal has to be granted in every B such case. It will depend upon the circumstances of each case because grant of leave to appeal itself falls within the highly discretionary jurisdiction of this Court.
6. In the peculiar facts of this case, if leave to appeal is granted the parties who will suffer embarrassment as well as hardship are in addition to (and in a way other than) the original vendee. He having surrendered the land under the Land Reforms Regulation, the next party involved would be the Land Commission. Not only this the land has already changed hands and has been transferred to tenants. They would also be directly involved and prejudiced. Accordingly, for all the aforestated reasons leave to appeal is refused.
7. M.B.A./A‑804/S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.