MUHAMMAD ASLAM SHAH vs HABIB KHAN and 11 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a pre-emptor against a High Court judgment that dismissed a civil revision. The core legal question presented was whether the pre-emption amount had been correctly fixed and decreed by the lower courts. The petitioner contended that an agreement to sell, executed within a year of the actual sale transaction, indicated a significantly lower price than what was ultimately paid, suggesting an inflated sale price. Conversely, the respondent argued that the discrepancy was adequately explained by evidence on the record, which the trial and appellate courts had concurrently accepted. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no error of law or principle in the concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court held that there was no justification to interfere with the High Court's refusal to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the finality of the concurrent factual determinations regarding the pre-emption price.
- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to exercise revisional jurisdiction when concurrent findings of fact exist regarding the pre-emption price?
- Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a pre-emption suit where no error of law or principle is demonstrated?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a pre-emptor/plaintiff; against the dismissal by the High Court, of a Civil Revision. The only question involved and raised now left to be resolved is; whether, the pre-emption amount has correctly been fixed and decreed.
2. ' Learned counsel has relied on an agreement to sell executed within a year of the transaction of sale which was subject-matter of pre-emption. The price of the land mentioned in the agreement was half of what was alleged to have been actually paid subsequently at the time of the sale transaction.
3. ' Learned counsel for the caveator relying on the evidence in this behalf argued that this so-called discrepancy/contradiction stood fully explained on record and having been accepted by the learned Courts below by concurrent finding of fact, the High Court rightly refused to exercise its revisional jurisdiction.
4. After hearing both the learned counsel we have not been able to discover any error, in the concurrent findings of fact by the learned Courts below, of law or principle. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.