MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs MUHAMMAD SULEMAN and another
These are two petitions for special leave to appeal arising out of suits filed by the petitioner for the specific performance of an agreement of sale of agricultural land, which were decreed in his favour on the basis of a special oath. The core legal question concerns the entitlement to costs of the suits where the trial court exercised its discretion not to award costs, and the subsequent failure of the petitioner's appeals and revision petitions before the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The Supreme Court held that no case for interference with the concurrent judgments of the subordinate courts regarding the refusal of costs was made out, and accordingly dismissed the petitions. The key principle laid down is that the award of costs is within the discretion of the trial court, and appellate or revisional courts will not lightly interfere with such exercise of discretion unless compelling grounds are shown.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the discretion of subordinate courts regarding the award of costs?
- Can a party claim costs as a matter of right following a decree based on a special oath?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--These are two petitions for special leave to appeal. They arise out of two suits filed by the petitioner for the specific performance of an agreement of sale of agricultural land. These were decreed in his favour on the basis of the Special Oath taken by him. While awarding the decree, the trial Court did not allow costs of the suits. He filed appeals and revision petitions before the Additional District Judge and the High Court to pursue his claim for costs but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. With these petitions the petitioner has not attached copies of judgments of the trial Court or of the Additional District Judge. He has also not cared to place on record the statements of parties whereby they agreed to get the suits decided on the basis of the Special Oath. However that may be, after hearing the learned counsel we are not persuaded that any case for interference with the judgments of the subordinate Courts has been made out. These petitions are dismissed.