Sheikh RIAZ AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD SAEED AKHTAR And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the primary dispute was whether the underlying transaction constituted a sale or an exchange. The trial court initially characterized the transaction as an exchange, rendering it non-pre-emptiable. However, the appellate court (Additional District Judge) reversed this finding, determining that the transaction was in fact a sale, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court in a second appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the characterization of the transaction as a sale or exchange is essentially a question of fact. The Court ruled that because the petitioner failed to demonstrate any misreading or non-reading of the relevant evidence by the appellate court, the High Court was fully justified in refusing to interfere with the factual findings on second appeal.
- Whether the determination of whether a transaction is a sale or an exchange is a question of fact?
- Can a High Court interfere in a second appeal with a finding of fact regarding the nature of a transaction without proof of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The question involved in this pre-emption matter was whether the disputed transaction was a sale or an exchange? The learned trial Court held that it was an exchange but the learned Additional District Judge, on appeal, found it to be a sale and, therefore, held that it was pre-emptiable. The High Court on second appeal, has not interfered with the findings of the learned Additional District Judge. Hence this petition for leave to appeal before us.
2. The question raised is essentially one of fact. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and he has not been able- to show that the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the transaction, in fact, was a sale and not an exchange is vitiated on account of misreading or non- reading of the relevant evidence; therefore, the High Court was justified in not interfering therewith.