MUHAMMAD SAEED and 7 others vs MUHAMMAD AYUB and another
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court in a pre-emption suit. The petitioners, who were defendants in the original suit, initially challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Their objection was overruled by the trial court, and a subsequent civil revision challenging that order was dismissed. The petitioners accepted the revisional order and did not challenge it further, proceeding to litigate the suit on its merits. After the trial court passed a decree against them, they unsuccessfully pursued a First Appeal before the District Court and a Regular Second Appeal before the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought to reagitate the issue of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners had accepted the earlier revisional order regarding jurisdiction and proceeded with the trial, they were precluded from reopening the issue. The Court dismissed the petitions, establishing the principle that a party cannot acquiesce to an adverse interlocutory order on jurisdiction, participate in the trial on merits, and subsequently seek to challenge that same jurisdictional point after an unfavorable final decree.
- Can a party that has accepted an adverse revisional order regarding jurisdiction and proceeded to trial on the merits later challenge that same jurisdictional point?
- Does the failure to challenge an interlocutory order on jurisdiction at the appropriate stage preclude a party from raising it in subsequent appeals?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--These two petitions are directed against the same judgment of the Lahore High Court, therefore, they are being disposed of together.
2. The petitioners/vendees/defendants in a pre-emption suit objected to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It was overrulled by the trial Court. Their civil revision challenging the order of the trial Court was dismissed. They accepted the revisional order and did not challenge it any further. The trial Court decided the pre-emption suit on merits and passed a decree in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. The decree was then challenged by the petitioners in First Appeal before the District Court, but without any success. They then challenged the decree before the High Court in Regular Second Appeals, which having been dismissed, they have now sought leave to appeal.
3. The point of jurisdiction raised before the trial Court but given up after the revisional order passed against the petitioners in the first round, was reagitated before the High Court. The learned counsel has reiterated the same point before us. Apart from the fact that there is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel, we have noticed that the petitioners, having accepted the revisional order in the earlier round of litigation, no useful purpose would be served in granting leave to appeal now on the same point at the asking of the petitioners. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed. 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.