MAQSOOD ALI and others vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption dispute concerning whether a property transaction constituted a gift or a sale. The High Court had determined that the transaction was a gift regarding the alienee who was the son of the alienor, but a sale regarding the other alienees who were strangers. The petitioners challenged the High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arguing that the High Court improperly interfered with findings of fact made by the District Appellate Court. The Supreme Court examined the arguments and held that the High Court's findings of fact were unexceptionable. Although the High Court did not explicitly detail the specific requirements of Section 115(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had effectively corrected a material irregularity in the appellate judgment. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the High Court's intervention was justified under its revisional powers.
- Can the High Court interfere with findings of fact in a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a transaction involving an alienor's son and strangers qualify as a gift or a sale for pre-emption purposes?
- Is the High Court's failure to explicitly cite the specific clause of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 fatal to its judgment if it corrected a material irregularity?
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 115(1)(c), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendees in a pre-emption matter against the part acceptance of respondents' civil revision by the High Court.
2. ' The controversy was whether the transaction which was the subject-matter of the suit was a gift as contended by the petitioners; or sale, as pleaded by the respondents/pre-emptors. Ultimately, it was held that it was a gift in so far as Abdul Majid respondent/alienee (son of the alicnor) is concerned but it was a sale in so far as the petitioners strangers/alienees are concerned.
3. ' This finding on the factpal controversy now stands concluded against the petitioners. The learned counsel has, however, vehemently contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. To deal with the findings of fact rendered in petitioners' favour by the District (Appellate)
4. Court. A subsidiary argument raised by him is that even if the High Court had jurisdiction in the matter to interfere with the findings of fact, it could not do so without satisfying the conditions laid down in section 115, C.P.C.
5. After hearing the learned counsel at length, we are satisfied firstly, that the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any such error or defect which should be noticed by this Court for granting leave to appeal. In addition, we after going through the material pointed out by the learned counsel, are satisfied that the impugned findings of fact are unexceptionable. It seems true that the learned Judge in the High Court did not pay special attention to the language used in clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 115, C.P.C. Which permits the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction if a lower Court in exercise of its jurisdiction acts illegally or with material irregularity.
6. However, the perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the High Court corrected the appellate judgment before it in so far as it suffered from material irregularity. The impugned judgment of the High Court being unexceptionable this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.