FATEH MUHAMMAD vs SAID RASUL and 7 others
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed by the defendant against the dismissal of his two civil revisions by the High Court, which upheld the lower courts' decisions in favor of the respondents regarding an alienation by a minor. The core legal question concerned whether a fresh suit could be instituted after an earlier suit was dismissed in default for non-prosecution, alongside a question of limitation. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding the dismissal in default could not be entertained as it was not raised before the High Court, and that the concurrent findings of fact on limitation and merits against the petitioner did not warrant interference. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the decision on merits was fair and the case was unfit for further appeal. The key principle established is that grounds not raised before the High Court cannot be urged for the first time in the Supreme Court, and concurrent findings of fact on limitation and merits will not be disturbed absent legal infirmity.
- Can a party raise a new legal ground before the Supreme Court that was not raised before the High Court?
- Does the dismissal of a suit in default for non-prosecution bar a fresh institution on the same cause of action if the question was never agitated below?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding limitation and merits?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions by the defendant in suit for possession, against the dismissal by the High Court, of his two Civil Revisions.
2. Respondents' side succeeded in a challenge to an alienation by a minor, before the trial Court.
The petitioner's appeal was dismissed and his Civil Revisions have also failed.
3. Learned counsel has contended, that the earlier suit filed from the respondents' side, having been dismissed in default for non-prosecution, fresh institution was not possible on the same cause of action.
4. When pointed out, that this question was not raised before the High Court, the learned counsel could not pursue the matter, any further. On the question of limitation, the second point raised by the learned counsel, he admitted that it stands concluded by findings of fact against the petitioner, which in our view, do not merit interference. Otherwise too, the decision on merits against the petitioner is fair and it is not a fit case for leave to appeal; the same accordingly, is refused.