GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs SARDAR MUHAMMAD
This matter arose from two civil petitions for special leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against a single judgment of the High Court dismissing his civil revisions. The core legal controversy concerned a dispute over 31 marlas of land gifted by a common donor, where the High Court had divided the land equally between the two competing claimants. Both parties sought sole entitlement to the entire property. The Supreme Court considered whether leave to appeal should be granted to re-evaluate the factual evidence already assessed by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that no important question of law was raised and declined to undertake a reappraisal of evidence on record. The Supreme Court established the principle that leave to appeal will not be granted merely for a reappraisal of evidence when no substantial question of law of public importance arises from the impugned judgment.
- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal solely for the purpose of reappraising evidence?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal lie when no substantial question of law is raised?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, ACTG. C.J.---This order will dispose of Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1238 of 1984 and Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 153 of 1985, both filed by Ghulam Muhammad against the same respondent, (i.e. Sardar Muhammad) and directed against the same judgment dismissing his civil revisions.
2. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the afore-mentioned judgment of the High Court, dated 3-12-1984.
3. We have heard the petitioner's counsel at some length and also gone through the impugned judgment.
The parties are disputing over 31 Marlas of land gifted to them by one Sain Ghulam Muhammad.
Each of them have been awarded half of the said land by the High Court but none of ~ them feels satisfied, as each of them wants to acquire the entire land gifted by the above-said Sain Ghulam Muhammad.
4. No question of law of any importance has been raised and the petitioner only wants reappraisal of the evidence on the record. We, however, do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave for the said purpose. Both the petitions are, 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.