ABDUL GHANI vs MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN
The petitioner, a vendee in two pre-emption suits based on separate mutations, raised a plea that the sale constituted a single transaction and that the mutations were incorrect. The trial court framed an issue placing the onus regarding this plea on the petitioner, and subsequently refused the petitioner's prayer to re-frame the issue. The High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's order in revision, leading to the present petition for special leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the issue framed by the trial court regarding the nature of the transaction. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner asserted a single transaction contrary to the two existing mutations, no legitimate exception could be taken to the issue as framed, and the matter of whether the sale was single or multiple would be determined by the trial court based on evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether a party asserting that multiple mutations represent a single transaction bears the burden of establishing the same through an appropriately framed issue?
- Will the High Court interfere in revision with the trial court's discretionary framing of issues where no legitimate exception arises?
- How is the question of whether a sale transaction is single or multiple determined in a pre-emption suit?
ORDER
1. M. R. KHAN, J.-The respondent has brought two pre-emption suits against the petitioner on the basis of two mutations. The petitioner is the vendee in respect of those two mutations. In the suits, the petitioner raised a plea that there was one transaction of sale and the two mutations are wrong. On the pleadings, the trial Court framed an issue whether there was only one transaction regarding the lands sold. The petitioner objected to this issue apparently on the apprehension that the same would place the onus on him and prayed for re-framing the issue stating whether there were two transactions regarding the lands sold.
2. This prayer was refused by the trial Court. The petitioner came to the High Court in revision, but that Court refused to interfere. The order of the High Court refusing to interfere in revision is under challenge in this petition for special leave.
3. Admittedly, there are two mutations in respect of the lands under pre-emption. It was the petitioner who raised the plea that there was one sale transaction and the two mutations are wrong. In this state of things no legitimate exception can be taken to the issue framed in the suit. Even otherwise, the question whether the transaction was one as alleged by the petitioner or whether there were two transactions in respect of the lands sold as claimed by the pre-emptor, will have to be determined by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. We do not, therefore, find any substance in this petition.
4. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.