FAZAL HUSSAIN vs GHULAM HUSSAIN And Another
The petitioner, an unsuccessful defendant vendee, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 20 June 1979, which dismissed his regular second appeal arising from pre-emption suits filed over a sale of land that took place on 10 August 1972. The trial court had decreed the suits in equal shares in favour of the plaintiffs, and both the first and second appeals had failed. The core legal questions involved whether the denial of evidence amounted to a breach of natural justice, whether the plaints suffered from partial pre-emption, and whether the petitioner possessed a superior right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner's counsel had explicitly stated in the trial court that the present witnesses were not to be examined, no injustice or violation of natural justice occurred. Furthermore, the remaining grounds had been correctly dealt with by the lower courts. The Supreme Court concluded that no question of law requiring further examination arose, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.
- Does the closure of evidence amount to a violation of natural justice when a party's counsel voluntarily states that the present witnesses are not to be examined?
- Can a defendant vendee claim a superior right of pre-emption as a grandson of the vendor and owner of land in an adjoining village after concurrent findings against him?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the lower courts have concurrently dismissed a regular second appeal in pre-emption proceedings.
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner an unsuccessful defendant vendee seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated the 20th of June, 1979 whereby a regular second appeal filed by him, was dismissed.
2. The sale of land had taken place on 10-8-1972. Ghulam Hussain and Allah Din by to separate suits pre-empted the sale. It was contested but was decreed in equal shares in favour of both. The first appeal as well as the second appeal failed. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not allowed to lead evidence though his witnesses were present in the Court premises and this denial amounted to non-observance of principles of natural justice. He also contended that the pre-emptor--- suits were defective on account of partial pre-emption and the trial Court unjustifiably remedied the defect by suo motu making corrections in the plaint. Finally, it was contended that the petitioner being the grandson of the vendor and the owner of the land in the adjoining village had an equal if not a better right of pre-emption to defeat the claim of the plaintiff-respondent .
4. As regards the closure of evidence it is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the counsel representing the petitioner in the trial Court himself made the statement that the witnesses who were present were not to be examined. The mere presence of witnesses is of no value when the party calling them does not itself want to produce them. There would in such case be no injustice done nor failure to observe principles of natural justice. As regards the other grounds, they have been dealt with by the Courts at the various) levels and found to be without merit.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find no fault in the conclusions drawn by the to Courts. There does not arise in the case any question of law such as may require further examination in this Court. Hence leave to appeal is refused.