MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ and others vs FATEH MUHAMMAD and others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the vendees in a pre-emption matter against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court. The petitioners contended that the suit land was state land and therefore exempt from pre-emption. However, this plea was raised for the first time during the revision petition before the High Court, having not been raised before the lower courts. The High Court refused to exercise its revisional jurisdiction on this ground because the respondents had not been afforded an opportunity to lead evidence to rebut this belated plea. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the refusal to exercise revisional jurisdiction under such circumstances was unexceptionable. The Court laid down the principle that a new factual plea requiring evidence cannot be raised for the first time at the revisional stage if it deprives the opposing party of the opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal.
- Can a party raise a new plea for the first time in civil revision before the High Court if it requires factual evidence that the opposing party had no opportunity to rebut?
- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to exercise its revisional jurisdiction when a plea of land being state land is raised belatedly?
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by vendees in a pre-emption matter against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court.
2. ' Learned counsel has contended that the suit land was in fact state land and was not subject to pre-emption.
3. This very point was urged before the High Court in support of this revision petition, but the petitioners did not succeed because it had not been taken before the lower Court. The argument of the learned counsel is that although the plea could be established on the basis of the record available before lower Courts, the plea could not be taken due to inadvertence. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the respondents had no opportunity to lead evidence in respect of the plea, taken at a belated stage. Refusal by the High Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction in these circumstances is unexceptionable. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.