BADAR DIN vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 5 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a vendee and defendant against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld a pre-emption decree passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. During the hearing, the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the petitioner's conduct in filing two separate civil revisions against the same judgment and decree without disclosing the earlier dismissal. The Supreme Court refrained from addressing the preliminary objection and instead examined the case on its merits. The petitioner's counsel argued on the question of fact relating to a claim of tenancy, but both the appellate court and the High Court had already rendered concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner. Finding no justification to interfere with these concurrent factual findings, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact rendered by lower courts regarding a claim of tenancy in a pre-emption suit?
- Whether leave to appeal should be refused when a petitioner fails to make out a case on the merits of factual determinations?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a vendee/defendant in a suit for pre-emption; against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Civil Revision against decree passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff side.
2. ' Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection. According to him the petitioner filed two Civil Revisions in the High Court against the same judgment and decree without informing the Court on the second occasion about the earlier dismissal. Accordingly no relief should be granted to the petitioner in the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court to grant leave to appeal and the petition should be dismissed on this ground alone.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner while admitting only that part of the factual aspect of the preliminary objection which related to the filing of the two Civil Revisions and their dismissal, tried to give additional facts so as to explain petitioner's conduct. He also pointed out that same questions having already been agitated before the High Court, any order by this Court might influence its judgment which have (or might have) inter alia, involved the question of contempt of Court.
4. ' In the circumstances of this case we refrain from making any comment on the preliminary objection and the reply thereto. After the disposal of the preliminary objection we heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the merits of the case. He has failed on question of fact relating to claim of tenancy. Both the learned Appeal Court and the High Court have rendered findings of fact against him. After hearing the learned counsel in this behalf we do not find any justification for interference so as to examine the correctness of the findings of fact. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.