ALLAH DITTA Versus FARZAND ALI

ORDER

KARAM ELLAHI CHAUHAN, J ‑Some of the respondents whose details are given in the relevant plaint filed a suit for a declaration that they were owners of the suit land as co‑sharers alongwith others on the ground that earlier they had occupancy rights therein which terminated under section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act XVI of 1887 and as a result thereof they legally became owners of the suit land. The suit was decreed on 30‑1‑1959.

2. Defendant No. 1, viz. the present petitioner alone filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 11‑2‑1963.

3. The petitioner then filed a second appeal being R. S. A. 2 of 196 which also met the same fate and was dismissed by the High Court on 26‑11‑1974.

4. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court.

5. It may be mentioned that in the High Court the petitioner did not raise any argument to find fault with the factual finding regarding the status of the respondents/plaintiffs and the only point argued was that he should be given an opportunity to lead some additional evidence but that request was turned down by the High Court. Before us the learned counsel ha not repeated that request and this time he has tried to raise point regarding the non‑maintainability of the suit in the civil Court. This point as mentioned above was not raised in the High Court. In these circumstance, we are not inclined to allow the petitioner to take up the plea which had been given up by him as aforesaid in the High Court. When confronted with this situation learned counsel submitted that it was a question of jurisdiction and therefore despite the petitioner having abandoned it in the art from High Court, he should be allowed to reagitate it in this Court. Apart the fact that on this point there are views of the first two Courts against the petitioner, we even otherwise are not inclined to grant this permission to him because he has not been able to point out any fault to us on the factual aspect of the case or to show that the orders of three Courts below suffer from any injustice or misreading or omission of the record regarding the status of the plaintiffs/respondents, etc. as owners of the suit land.

6. In the light of what has been stated above in our opinion this is not a fit case for grant of special leave to appeal.

7. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.