BASHIR vs NASIR and another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a plaintiff challenging the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court regarding a suit for declaration of a gift. The petitioner initially contended that the gift made by his father in favor of the respondent violated the prevailing customary law. However, the Supreme Court noted that this argument regarding customary law was no longer available due to subsequent changes in the law. The petitioner further attempted to challenge the gift on grounds related to the donor's state and the failure to satisfy necessary conditions for the gift's validity. The Supreme Court held that these new pleas were not raised before the High Court and involved questions of fact that could not be entertained for the first time at the leave to appeal stage. Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's case to justify interference. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the finality of the High Court's decision.
- Can a petitioner raise new pleas regarding questions of fact in a petition for leave to appeal that were not pressed before the High Court?
- Does a change in law render a previously argued ground regarding customary law unavailable to a petitioner?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a civil revision matter?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff in a suit for declaration regarding a gift against the dimissal by the High Court of his Civil Revision.
2. ' The petitioner's case was that the gift made by his father in respondent's favour was against the then prevailing customary law. The suit was dismissed. The petitioner's Civil Revision met the same fate. The plea taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court regarding the customary law, is no more available to the petitioner on account of the change of law in the meanwhile. The learned counsel also tried to attack the gift on the ground that the donor was in the state and further that other necessary conditions, for effectuating the gift were not satisfied.
3. The pleas now taken were not pressed before the High Court. They related to the questions of fact and cannot be entertained at this stage. Otherwise too, the petitioner's case on merits is not such so as to justify interference by this Court. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.