MUHAMMAD MALIK and another vs AHMAD DIN and others
This matter originated as a suit for pre-emption of a sale of land, wherein the petitioners claimed a superior right based on their status as co-sharers in the khata and as tenants. The trial court dismissed the suit after rejecting both grounds. On appeal, the petitioners abandoned the tenancy claim and focused solely on the co-sharer status, which the appellate court also rejected. A subsequent second appeal to the Lahore High Court was dismissed in limine. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that their documentary evidence established their co-sharer status. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners failed to provide the necessary documents or the trial court's judgment for review. Furthermore, the Court noted that the first appellate court had already duly considered the relevant evidence, specifically the extract from the register Haqdaran. Finding that the petitioners' plea involved a question of fact already settled by concurrent findings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court held that there was no justification for interference and dismissed the petition.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts regarding a claim of being a co-sharer in a pre-emption suit?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal liable to be dismissed if the petitioner fails to provide the necessary documents and judgments of the lower courts for review?
ORDER
' M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- The petitioners had sought to pre-empt a sale of land by a suit on grounds of
(1) having superior right as co-sharers in the khata, and (2) being tenants. None of their pleas succeeded with the result that the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Before the appellate Court, they did not contest the finding in regard to their claim of being tenants but pressed only their plea of being co-sharers in the khata. The appellate Court held that they had failed to prove this plea too and accordingly dismissed the appeal. They then moved a second appeal in the Lahore High Court but the same was dismissed in limine.
2. Learned counsel urges that the documents produced on behalf of the petitioners did establish their claim of being co-sharers in the khata. Unfortunately, he has not filed copy of any of those documents nor of the judgment of the trial Court. He now seeks time to file copy of these documents. But considering that this petition has been pending since 1977, there is no justification for allowing time at this stage. Moreover, we find that the documents produced by the petitioners, particularly the extract from the register Haqdaran had been duly considered by the first appellate Court. The petitioners' plea being one of fact and having been concluded by concurrent finding by the Courts below, there is no scope for interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.