ABDUL HAQUE Versus SULEMAN
This matter originated from a suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner, Abdul Haque, which was decreed by the trial court subject to the payment of the remaining sale price within a specified timeframe. Following an appeal filed by the defendants, the petitioner sought the dismissal of said appeal, which the Additional District Judge refused, directing the appeal to proceed on its merits. The petitioner subsequently filed a revision petition in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed in limine. The petitioner then sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the revision petition against the appellate court's refusal to dismiss the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was correct, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any misreading or misconstruction of the record by the lower courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order, ruling that in the absence of any error of law or misappreciation of evidence, the petition for leave to appeal was not a fit case for interference.
- Does the dismissal of a revision petition in limine by the High Court constitute a valid exercise of jurisdiction when no misreading of the record is established?
- Is a petition for special leave to appeal maintainable when the lower courts have not committed any error of law?
1. GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J. ‑‑ Abdul Haque filed a suit for specific performance against Suleman and others in the Court of Civil Judge, 1st Class, Sargodha. The trial Court decreed the suit by judgment dated 29‑4‑1985 observing that the remaining sale price of Rs.70,000 be paid within a period of forty‑five days from the date of judgment otherwise the suit shall stand dismissed. Defendant No.1 Suleman was directed to return to defendants Nos. 2 to 4 whatever he had received as price of the suit land.
2. Muhammad Nazir and others filed appeal against the judgment of the trial Court before the Additional District Judge. Pending appeal an application was made by Abdul Haque petitioner for dismissal of the appeal. That application was dismissed by the Additional District Judge by judgment dated 30‑5‑1988. It was observed by the Additional District Judge that the appeal shall proceed on merits.
3. Abdul Haque filed revision against the order of the Additional District Judge in the Lahore High Court. A learned Judge of the High Court dismissed the revision in limine by order dated 15‑6‑1988. It is against the aforesaid order that Abdul Haque has filed this petition for special leave to appeal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No new point was urged before us. The view taken by the High Court was not erroneous in any way. As a matter of fact the High Court dismissed the revision because no case of misreading or misconstruction of record was made out.
5. In the light of the aforesaid observation and in the absence of any error of law we don't think this is a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
6. M.B.A./A.328/S. Petition dismissed.