TAJ DIN vs Mst. KALSOOM BIBI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld a decree for specific performance in favor of the respondent concerning land purchased in auction from the Provincial Government. The core legal question centered on whether the decree for specific performance was warranted given the contentions regarding the nature of the relief claimed and alleged default by the respondent. The Supreme Court held that points not urged before the High Court cannot be entertained for the first time in the apex court, and accordingly refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will generally decline to entertain contentions and points that were not pressed or raised before the lower appellate or High Court.
- Can a petitioner raise new contentions before the Supreme Court that were not urged before the High Court?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted against a concurrent decree for specific performance when the points raised were not pressed below?
- Section 19, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH. J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant against the dismissal by the High Court of his civil revision; which had arisen out of a decree for specific performance in respondent's favour.
2. ' Petitioner agreed to sell the land in dispute, which he had purchased from the Provincial Government in auction. Subsequently a dispute arose between the parties and the respondent's suit for specific performance has been decreed throughout.
3. ' Learned counsel has contended that the relief claimed by respondent was for the refund of the amount paid. Thus there was no need for granting the impugned decree. He has also contended that the respondent was at fault for not performing the contract.
4. The contentions raised now, were not urged before the High Court. The question about the application of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act raised then, was dealt with adequately. In the circumstances of the case, we decline to entertain the points not pressed in the High Court. Leave to appeal is refused.
5. ' If some amount is to be deposited or paid by the respondent in pursuance of the impugned decree, she might seek time from the trial Court; which shall allow reasonable time. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 1 case
- Mst. REHMAT BIBI and others vs Mst. JHANDO BIBI and others 1992 SCMR 1510