GHULAM MUHAMMAD And Another vs SADIQ And 13 Other
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a Civil Revision in a suit for possession. The respondents claimed title to the suit property through an auction purchase. The petitioners, while failing to establish their own title, contended that the property belonged to the Central Government, rendering the auction sale by the Provincial Government legally ineffective. A central point of contention raised by the petitioners involved an issue concerning the correct description of the suit property and the consequences of failing to submit a Jamabandi or site plan. The Supreme Court observed that this issue had been abandoned in the trial court, re-agitated before the appellate court, but ultimately not pressed in the High Court. Finding no reasonable explanation for this conduct and determining that the property in dispute was sufficiently described and identifiable, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the lower court's decision.
- Can a party re-agitate an issue in a higher court that was explicitly abandoned in the trial court?
- Is a property sale invalid if the petitioners fail to prove their own title but allege the property belongs to the Central Government?
- Does the failure to submit a Jamabandi or site plan necessarily invalidate a suit for possession if the property is otherwise identifiable?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J: ---Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants' side in a suit for possession; against the dismissal of their Civil Revision, by the High Court.
2. The respondents had claimed the purchase of the suit property through auction. The petitioners' plea was that although they had no proof of their own title the property had belonged to the Central Government, therefore, the auction/sale in respondents' favour by the Provincial Government was without any legal effect.
3. Learned counsel has pressed the argument regarding issue No.7 which reads as follows:-- "What is the correct description of the suit property and what is the effect of non-submission of any Jamabandi or site plan? O.P.Parties."
4. It needs to be observed that this issue was abandoned in the trial Court. However, it was re- agitated before the appellate Court but it has to be further noticed that the point was not pressed in the High Court.
5. When questioned to explain the conduct of the petitioners' side in this behalf, learned counsel could not satisfy us on the basis of any reasonable explanation. Be that as it may, after hearing the learned counsel on this question we have not found any force in the argument that the property in dispute was not sufficiently and properly described and/or identifiable. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.