MUHAMMAD EISA And 6 Others vs KHAIR UD DIN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a Civil Revision arising from a suit for the cancellation of a sale deed. The petitioners, successors-in-interest to the original plaintiff, challenged the sale deed on grounds of fraud and lack of consideration. The trial court and the appellate court had concurrently ruled against the plaintiff on these factual issues. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners attempted to raise new arguments regarding the minority of their predecessor and an alleged admission by his father. The Supreme Court observed that these specific pleas were not pressed before the High Court, which had correctly focused on the concurrent findings of fact regarding fraud and consideration. Finding no misreading or non-reading of evidence by the lower courts, the Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact do not warrant interference unless a legal defect is demonstrated. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that issues not raised or pressed before the High Court cannot be agitated for the first time in the Supreme Court.
- Can a party raise a plea in the Supreme Court that was not pressed before the High Court?
- Do concurrent findings of fact by lower courts warrant interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the underlying controversy relates solely to concurrent findings of fact?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J: --Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs' side; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Revision. It had arisen out of a suit for cancellation of sale--deed.
2. Muhammad Aslam, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, had challenged the sale-deed alleged to have been executed by him in favour of the respondent on the ground that it was tainted with fraud and was also without consideration. The plaintiff's side having failed before all the three Courts below have now sought leave to appeal.
3. It is not denied that the controversy relates to findings of fact which have been concurrently rendered against the petitioners by the learned Courts below. Realising this the learned counsel contended that the question of minority of Muhammad Aslam, petitioners' predecessor-in-interest and the so-called admission made by his father Muhammad Siddique, have not been properly dealt with.
4. The impugned judgment shows that the plea now sought to be raised was not pressed before the High Court. In the impugned judgment it was observed as follows:--- "The only finding of the learned Civil Judge, which was assailed by the petitioners before the learned Additional District Judge, who dismissed their appeal, was on issue No.1. This issue is in respect of the plea of fraud and want of consideration. Whether the sale was fraudulent and without consideration are questions of fact on which, as indicated above, there are concurrent findings of the learned lower Courts. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out any misreading or non---reading of evidence or any other defect justifying interference with their findings.- In view of the aforenoticed approach of the High Court to the only question raised before it from the petitioners' side which no doubt is unexceptionable, this petition merits dismissal. However, we after having heard the learned counsel on the plea raised before us are not satisfied that it merits any consideration by this Court. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused,
Cited by 1 case
- KALAY KHAN and 2 others vs WALAYAT KHAN 2010 YLR 1430