MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MUHAMMAD KHAN and others
This is a defendant's petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which arose from a declaratory decree concerning the title to suit property in favour of the respondents. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner could simultaneously claim ownership through purchase while seeking to oust the civil court's jurisdiction based on the respondents' allegation that he was a tenant. The Supreme Court held that a party cannot be permitted to take inconsistent and self-contradictory pleas in litigation. The Court laid down the principle that discretionary relief of leave to appeal will be refused when a party attempts to approbate and reprobate by denying tenancy for its own claim of ownership while trying to rely on the adversary's assertion of tenancy solely to contest the forum's jurisdiction.
- Can a party take inconsistent and self-contradictory pleas regarding its status as a tenant or owner in civil proceedings?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the petitioner attempts to approbate and reprobate regarding the jurisdiction of the forum?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This is defendant's petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of his Civil Revision. It has arisen out of a declaratory decree passed in favour of the respondents side regarding title to the suit property. The trial Court had dismissed the suit but their appeal having succeeded, the petitioner's challenge against the appellate judgment and decree, having failed before the High Court in its Revisional jurisdiction, he has now sought leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel vehemently contended that according to the admission made from the respondents side that the petitioner was their tenant, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, notwithstanding the petitioner's plea that he was not a tenant and that he was in fact an owner through purchase. When questioned whether the petitioner now accepts the position as a tenant so that if he succeeds in this Court and the case is to be tried by the competent forum, this controversy regarding the petitioner being a tenant should stand concluded, he replied that it is not the petitioner's case that he is a tenant. If the leave is to be granted it should be granted on the statement in that behalf made by the plaintiff side during the trial Court.
3. ' After hearing the learned counsel, we in this discretionary jurisdiction to grant or withhold leave to appeal, would not in the circumstances of the case, permit the petitioner to take inconsistent and self-contradictory pleas. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused, as it is not a fit case for the grant thereof.