MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and another vs HASSAIN AHMAD and 13 others
This civil petition for leave to appeal was instituted by the vendees against the judgment of the High Court dismissing their Regular First Appeal in a pre-emption dispute. The petitioners primarily contended that the High Court dismissed their appeal without formally summoning the trial court record, and additionally challenged concurrent findings regarding ownership of the estate and the determination of the land price. The Supreme Court examined the tenor and contents of the High Court's judgment, particularly noting references to exhibited documents from the lower court, and held that the record was either formally summoned or duly made available for deciding the appeal, thereby rejecting the procedural objection. The remaining contentions regarding ownership and land valuation were identified as pure questions of fact supported by the record. Finding no justification or legal flaw to warrant interference with the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
- Whether an appellate judgment can be challenged for non-summoning of the record when its contents demonstrate that exhibited lower court documents were duly considered?
- Whether concurrent findings on pure questions of fact regarding ownership and land valuation warrant interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendees' side in a pre- emption matter against the dismissal of their Regular First Appeal by the High Court.
2. ' Learned counsel contended that the High Court dismissed the appeal without summoning the record; that the question of ownership of estate was wrongly decided; and, the price of the land was also wrongly determined.
3. ' The tenor of the judgment of the High Court and the contents of para. 5 thereof in particular where documents exhibited before the lower Court were referred to, are indicative of the fact that the record must have been formally summoned by the Court or it was made available to it for the purposes of the disposal of the appeal. The first point raised by the learned counsel, therefore, fails.
4. The other points are of fact.
5. We have heard the learned counsel at some length and examined the material relied upon by him; but do not find any justification for interference with the impugned judgment. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.