Messrs TOOTI TANNERIES LTD. vs SARDAR RAZA ALI KHAN and 5 others
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment rendered in writ jurisdiction concerning a settlement dispute. The petitioner raised two primary contentions: first, that the High Court improperly engaged in a detailed factual inquiry regarding the identity of the disputed property and its availability for transfer; and second, that the High Court's findings on these factual issues were incorrect. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court had conducted the detailed inquiry with the express consent of both parties involved. Regarding the factual findings, the Supreme Court found no legal infirmity or error in principle in the High Court's determination. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court did not exceed its jurisdiction given the consensual nature of the proceedings, and the factual findings were upheld. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that where parties consent to a detailed factual inquiry in writ proceedings, they cannot subsequently challenge the court's jurisdiction to conduct such an inquiry.
- Can a party challenge the High Court's exercise of detailed factual inquiry in writ jurisdiction if the inquiry was conducted with the consent of both parties?
- Does the High Court have the authority to resolve factual controversies in writ jurisdiction when parties consent to such a procedure?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The decision of the High Court in its writ jurisdiction in a settlement matter involving two serious factual controversies--one relating to the identity of the disputed property and the other to its availability for transfer, has been challenged on two grounds: (a), that the High Court should not have held the detailed inquiry for rendering findings of fact in its writ jurisdiction; and (b) that the findings are incorrect, on both aforestated questions.
2. After hearing both the learned counsel at length we are satisfied that the High Court held the detailed inquiry with the consent of both the parties. On the second question we are satisfied that the findings by the High Court do not suffer from any infirmity of law or principle.This petition for leave to appeal, accordingly, is dismissed.