Syed ABID ALI SHAH vs FAKHAR UD DIN
The petitioner, an unsuccessful defendant, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed his revision petition and affirmed the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two courts below. The plaintiff-respondent had instituted a civil suit claiming ownership and possession of a plot of land measuring 17 Marlas. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff's ownership extended only to 14 Marlas and not 17 Marlas, which finding was upheld by the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The core legal question concerned the petitioner's grievance regarding observations made in the High Court judgment concerning the remaining 3 Marlas of land. The Supreme Court held that since the decree of the trial court only granted 14 Marlas and left the residue untouched, the petitioner was not aggrieved by the unaltered decree. The Supreme Court laid down that a party cannot maintain a petition for leave to appeal against mere observations in a judgment when the actual decree does not adversely affect them. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
- Can a party seek leave to appeal against mere observations in a judgment when the underlying decree does not grant relief against them?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts can be disturbed in revision without jurisdictional error?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, an unsuccessful defendant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 5-2-1985, whereby a revision petition filed by him was dismissed affirming thereby the judgments of the two Courts below.
2. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a civil suit claiming ownership and possession of a plot of land measuring 17 Marlas, situate in the Abadi of village Jand, Tehsil Pindigheb, District Campbellpur. The petitioner contested the suit but ultimately it was decreed. The trial Court held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property but his ownership extends to only 14 Marlas in this plot and not in 17 Marlas as claimed in the plaint". The Additional District Judge dismissed the petitioner's appeal observing that "I endorse the findings of the learned trial Court on all the issues". The petitioner now objects to the observation in the judgment of the High Court dismissing his revision petition, in which the claim to 3 Marlas left out of the suit property claimed by the plaintiff-respondent is concerned. It is urged that by no principle could it be denied to the petitioner.
3. We have gone through the judgments and decrees of all the Courts and find that the revision petition was dismissed in limine and the decree of the trial Court with regard to the 14 Marlas stands intact. To that, the petitioner has no objection. As regards the residue of 3 Marlas, the decree does not grant it to the plaintiff-respondent and the petitioner should not feel aggrieved by the observation made when the decree remains unaltered. There is no case of leave to appeal which is refused.