Pakistan Case Law
1984 SCMR 1280

KALAN KHAN vs ALI MUHAMMAD and another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1984 SCMR 1280
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,685 of 1980 Writ Petition No,1456/R of 1974
Date1983-10-31
Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah
Authored byAslam Riaz Hussain
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 18-3-1980, which dismissed his writ petition regarding a settlement dispute. The parties were transferred separate properties, specifically House Nos. 43 and 45 respectively, but had been engaged in litigation since 1959 concerning a single room located in House No. 45. After extended proceedings before both the Settlement authorities and the High Court, it was determined as a matter of fact that the disputed room formed part of House No. 45 transferred to the respondent. The Supreme Court considered whether leave to appeal should be granted to re-evaluate this factual finding. Finding the impugned judgment of the High Court to be unexceptionable and observing that the dispute related strictly to a question of fact, the Supreme Court held that it was not a fit case for granting leave to appeal. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal to re-examine a concurrent finding on a pure question of fact in a settlement matter?
leave to appealsettlement disputequestion of factwrit petitiontransfer of property

ORDER

' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 18-3-1980, dismissing his writ petition in a settlement matter.

2. The parties in this case have been transferred separate houses bearing Nos.43 and 45 respectively. They have however been litigating since 1959 about one room which is situated in House No,45.

' After protracted litigation before the Settlement authorities as well as before the High Court it was decided that the room I n dispute is part of House No,45 transferred to the respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order.

' Hence the present petition.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the impugned judgment. We feel that the same is unexceptionable. In any case the matter relates only factual matter and do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave in order to reconsider a sail question of fact. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.