MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others
The petitioners, vendees and heirs of vendees, filed a Regular First Appeal in the High Court against a trial court decree in a pre-emption suit. Although the appeal challenged findings on multiple issues, the High Court admitted the appeal only to consider the question of the appellants' entitlement to compensation for alleged improvements and denied interim relief regarding possession. The petitioners sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the restrictive admitting order amounted to an unreasoned dismissal of their remaining pleas, citing supporting authorities. The Supreme Court held that the point raised required consideration and accordingly granted leave to appeal, while continuing the stay already granted and setting a date for the hearing.
- Does the admission of an appeal on a limited ground amount to the dismissal of other pleas raised in the memorandum of appeal?
- Is the High Court required to assign reasons when restricting the admission of a regular first appeal to specific issues?
ORDER
' M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- The petitioners, who are vendees/heirs of vendees, filed Regular First Appeal in the High Court against the decree passed against them by the trial Court in a pre-emption suit. As many as ten issues had been framed and decided in regard to the controversy between the parties, of which the findings on issues Nos. 1,2, 9 and 10 had been specifically challenged in the memorandum of appeal. However, the appeal was admitted only "to consider the question of appellants' entitlement to compensation for the improvements alleged to have been effected by them". The High Court also did not allow them any interim relief in regard to the possession of the disputed land for the reason that "the appellants have to part with the disputed land in any case".
2. Although the petitioners' appeal is pending in the High Court, learned counsel has sought leave to appeal urging that the admitting order amounted to dismissal of their appeal in regard to their pleas other than that of compensation for the improvements, that the High Court had not assigned any reason for such dismissal and that, therefore, the dismissal of the appeal on those other pleas was bad in law. Reliance was placed on Eswariah v. Rameswaryya AIR 1940 Mad. 483, Muhammad Saghir Bhatti & Sons v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1958 SC 221 and Abid Hussain v. Afsar Jehan Begum PLD 1973 SC 1.
3. The point raised requires consideration. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. Security Rs,2,500.
The appeal shall be heard in the week commencing 24th March, 1984 at Rawalpindi. The stay already granted shall continue to remain in force.