ASHIQ ALI vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 3 others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute concerning the identity and location of property. The lower courts, including the High Court, resolved the factual controversy regarding the property's identity and location against the petitioner, primarily based on the petitioner's own pleadings. The Supreme Court found that the questions raised were essentially factual and had been correctly determined by the courts below. Consequently, the Court found no justification for interference and refused leave to appeal. Furthermore, the Court addressed the petitioner's intent to re-agitate the same plea before the executing court. The Supreme Court held that raising the same controversy again before the executing court would not constitute an honest pursuit and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The petition was dismissed with these observations.
- Can a party re-agitate a factual controversy regarding property identity before an executing court after it has been resolved against them by the High Court?
- Does the re-litigation of a settled factual issue before an executing court constitute an abuse of the process of law?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The question raised by the learned counsel in connection with which he has addressed all his arguments, is one of identity and location of the property in dispute.
It has been resolved by the learned Courts below against the petitioner and by the High Court, in particular with reference to the petitioner's pleadings. The questions raised are essentially of facts which have been correctly determined against the petitioner. No justification having been made for interference by this Court. Leave to appeal is accordingly, refused.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after hearing our order, pointed out that the petitioner would now raise the same pica before the executing Court. We instead of making any observation favourable to the petitioner in this behalf, which has perhaps been expected by the learned counsel, are of the view that if this controversy is again raised by the petitioner before the executing Court, that would not be an honest pursuit and would also amount to abuse of process of law.
3. With these observations this petition stands dismissed.