GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others vs AMIR NAWAB KHAN and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition in limine and affirmed an order passed by the District Judge, Malakand. The underlying dispute originated from an ex parte ejectment order issued by the Rent Controller, Malakand, against the petitioners. The petitioners challenged this order before the District Judge, who examined the merits and concluded that there was no justification to set aside the ex parte ejectment order, particularly noting that the appeal was time-barred and the delay remained unexplained. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioners failed to provide any effective arguments to warrant interference with the High Court's judgment. Consequently, the Court held that the case did not present a fit ground for granting leave to appeal. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding procedural defaults, such as unexplained delays in filing appeals, absent a compelling legal justification.
- Can an appellate court interfere with an ex parte ejectment order when the appeal itself is time-barred and the delay is unexplained?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an order of a District Judge upholding an ex parte ejectment order where no legal error is demonstrated?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of Peshawar High Court dated 11-7-1988 whereby their Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine and the order passed by the District Judge, Malakand, dated 28-2-1988, was upheld.
2. ' Rent Controller, Malakand at Batkhela by order dated 16-2-197 ordered ejectment of the petitioners. This was an ex parte order. Petitioners welt in appeal before the District Judge who thoroughly examined the entire matter and ultimately came to the conclusion that there was no justification to set aside the ex parte order especially when the appeal before him was also barred by time I and the delay had not been properly explained. This order was upheld by the Peshawar High Court.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to advance any effective argument to justify interference in the impugned judgment of Peshawar High Court. It is not a fit case for leave.