SALEHON MUHAMMAD and another vs ALLAH YAR
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal filed by vendees challenging the dismissal of their Civil Revisions by the High Court. The petitioners raised two primary contentions: first, a procedural objection regarding the trial court's practice of recording evidence in one case and copying it into a connected matter, and writing a judgment in one case while reproducing it in another; and second, a substantive argument regarding the bar of estoppel against the respondent pre-emptor, citing the precedent of Naseer Ahmad v. Arshad Ahmad (PLD 1984 SC 403). The Supreme Court held that regarding the procedural objection, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that they objected to the trial court's mode of recording evidence at the time, and further noted that technical irregularities in judgment writing do not warrant leave to appeal where the questions involved are identical. Regarding the estoppel argument, the Court found the facts of the present case distinguishable from the cited precedent. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
- Does the practice of copying evidence and judgments between connected cases constitute a sufficient ground for granting leave to appeal?
- Can a party challenge the mode of recording evidence if no objection was raised before the trial court?
- Are concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the applicability of estoppel subject to re-examination by the Supreme Court if the facts are distinguishable from precedent?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions by vendees.
2. They are directed against the dismissal of their Civil Revisions.
3. ' Learned counsel has raised two-fold contentions; one, technical and procedural; and the other, on merits regarding bar of estoppel against the respondent/pre-emptor.
4. ' Regarding the first contention, the learned counsel stated that in reality evidence was recorded in one of these two connected matters but was, copied in the other, and further, that the judgment was written in one but was copied in the other, by filling in certain blanks.
5. Even if the first point be accepted as based on facts, the petitionersvendees in the subsequent suit should have objected to the mode of recording of evidence by the trial Court. There is no proof that he did so. With regard to the second point, the questions involved being the same, even if some of the parts of the judgment in one case are reproduced in subsequent case, we would not grant leave to appeal on this technicality either.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the present case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Naseer Ahmad v. Arshad Ahmad (PLD 1984 SC 403) that the suits should have been dismissed on the ground of estoppel. Prima facie, there is some strength in this argument of the learned counsel. However, we on careful scrutiny of the material before us and the learned Courts below which gave concurrent findings against the petitioners, are satisfied that the facts in this matter are distinguishable. The question of estoppel also does not, therefore, need re-examination.
7. Leave to appeal in both the petitions, is thus refused.
Cited by 7 cases
- Muhammad Azam Khan vs Mst. Armeen Ahmed 2019 LHC 1554
- MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN Versus Mst. ARMEEN AHMED (MINOR) 2019 CLCN 53
- MUZUWAR HUSSAIN and another vs Mst. SALMA BEGUM and 13 others 2016 PLJ Lahore 839
- MUHAMMAD SANAWAR KHAN vs AKHTAR KHAN and 2 others 2015 CLC 1253
- Ch. SAIFULLAH vs ALI SALEEM and another 2015 MLD 247
- Mst. Namoo Bibi widow of Allah Bachaya (deceased) & others vs Sardar 2021 LHC 1693
- Mst. Namoo Bibi and others vs Sardar Allah Yar Hiraj (Deceased) through Legal Heirs and others 2023 MLD 1630