MUHAMMAD AMIR vs NOOR MUHAMMAD and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a plaintiff against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the appellate court's decision setting aside a trial court decree in a suit for declaration regarding the sale of land by co-sharers. The core legal question concerned whether the alienation of land by certain co-sharers involved the petitioner's share from a joint Khata and whether the High Court erred in its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the first appellate judgment did not suffer from any error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction, particularly noting that the new plea regarding an earlier decree was not raised before the High Court. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, establishing the principle that new factual pleas not raised before the High Court will not be entertained for the first time to interfere with concurrent findings in revisional jurisdiction.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere in revisional jurisdiction when a plea regarding an earlier decree was not raised before the High Court?
- Does the alienation of land by co-sharers from a joint Khata warrant interference if it is within their share?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff in a suit for declaration, against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 stated to be the petitioner's co-sharers sold a piece of land to Respondent No,1 from a Khata which was alleged to he joint. The petitioner challenged the transaction on the ground that it involved his share. The suit was decreed. The respondents' appeal was allowed on the ground that the alienation was not beyond their share. This appellate decision having been affirmed by the High Court in Civil Revision filed by the petitioner, he has now sought leave to appeal.
2. ' Although the findings of fact were questioned before the High Court, the learned counsel has now urged before this Court that an earlier decree regarding the same land but with different area, has not been noticed by the High Court.
3. This plea was not raised before the High Court. However, after hearing the learned counsel in this behalf we are satisfied that the first appellate judgment does not suffer from any such error which should have been corrected in the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
4. ' Leave to . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.