FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs HASSAN SHAH and 4 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court in a suit for possession through redemption. The petitioner challenged the lower courts' findings regarding the valuation of improvements made on the disputed land, arguing that he was awarded insufficient compensation and was denied an adequate opportunity to lead evidence on this issue. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in relying on the report of a Local Commissioner/Referee without affording the petitioner further opportunity to produce evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner had failed to request the production of evidence or insist on the framing of a specific issue regarding the value of improvements during the trial proceedings. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner could not fault the trial court for failing to perform its duty when he had not sought to present evidence himself. Finding no impropriety in the impugned orders, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
- Can a party claim that a trial court failed to provide an opportunity to lead evidence if the party did not request to produce such evidence during the trial?
- Is a trial court justified in relying on the report of a Local Commissioner/Referee when the parties have not requested the framing of a specific issue regarding the subject matter of the report?
- Does the failure to request the framing of an issue regarding the value of improvements preclude a party from challenging the award of compensation in revision?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant, in a suit for possession through redemption, against the dismissal by the High Court of his Civil Revision. The petitioner has lost the case throughout.
2. ' The only question now raised before this Court by the learned counsel, is that full compensation for improvements has not been awarded in favour of the petitioner nor he was afforded adequate opportunity to lead evidence in this behalf. The argument as advanced before the High Court and its treatment in the impugned judgment are reproduced below-- "It is contended by the learned counsel that a sum of Rs,2 lacs has been claimed as the value of the improvements made on the land, the trial Court erred in law in allowing Rs,5,400. The precise grievance is that no opportunity had been allowed to the petitioner to produce evidence and the entire reliance has been placed on the report of the Local Commissioner/Referee As the petitioner neither asked for production of any evidence nor did he insist on framing an issue about the point raised and as the trial Court acted on the report of the Local Commissioner/referee, it is too late in the day to accept the contention that it is the Court which failed to perform its duty. It was the duty of the petitioner to have at least asked the Court to examine, if there was any evidence with him or if he wanted to produce any."
3. When confronted with the observations of the High Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner remained unable to press the petition any further. However, on our questioning with regard to the details of the improvements, we have not been able to find any serious impropriety on merits in the impugned order, either. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.