Syed AFZAL HUSSAIN SHAH vs QANITA KHATOON
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against a High Court judgment that dismissed his civil revision regarding a money decree. The petitioner, having lost in the lower courts, sought to challenge the decree for the recovery of Rs. 7,262.79. The High Court had previously affirmed the decree, finding no evidence of misreading or non-reading of evidence that would justify the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner abandoned his arguments on the merits of the case and focused solely on the issue of limitation. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the arguments regarding the limitation plea and noting that the liability to pay the amount had been clearly established against the petitioner, determined that the case did not warrant the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the lower court's decision.
- Does the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence preclude the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court?
- Is the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal in a money suit discretionary?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendant in a money suit; against the dismissal by the High Court of his Civil Revision on the finding that there being no misreading or non-reading of evidence no justification was made out for exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
2. The petitioner has lost throughout and now the decree for recovery of Rs.7,262.79 stands affirmed also by the High Court. The only argument after the rejection of the petitioner's pleas on merits pressed by his learned counsel before us relates to the plea of limitation.
3. The liability to pay the amount has been established against the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel on the point of limitation we do not consider it a fit case for exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in granting leave to appeal in his favour. The same, accordingly, is refused.