Malik FAZAL HUSSAIN vs Sardar ATTAULL Ali KHAN and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge the judgment dated 16-1-1984 of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a civil revision and upheld a decree for possession through pre-emption in favour of the respondent. The petitioner had purchased the land in dispute through a court decree, following which the respondents' pre-emption suit was decreed and the petitioner's subsequent appeal failed. In the High Court, the petitioner had pressed only the point regarding the pre-emption money, which was dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the point regarding the price, but instead attempted to raise a new point regarding the nature of the sale in his favour. The core legal question was whether a new point not pressed in the High Court could be raised for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not be permitted to raise a new point that was not pressed in the High Court. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Can a party raise a new point in a petition for leave to appeal that was not pressed before the High Court?
- Whether a decree for possession through pre-emption can be maintained when the underlying sale was made through a court decree?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, Actg. C.J.-- Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 16- 1-1984 of the Peshawar High Court; whereby a Civil Revision was dismissed and a decree for possession through pre-emption passed in favour of the respondent (plaintiff) was upheld.
2. ' The petitioner (defendant) has purchased the land in dispute through a Court decree.
3. Respondents' suit for pre-emption was decreed. Petitioner's appeal failed. Lie then filed a Civil Revision Petition in the High Court and pressed therein only the point regarding the pre-emption money. It was however dismissed. Therefore this petition for leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the point regarding the price. Instead he sought to raise a new point regarding the nature of sale in his favour. In the circumstances of the case, he was not permitted to do so as it was not pressed in the High Court. We accordingly dismiss this petition.