Mst. SALIMA BIBI vs Mst. HALIMA BIBI
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of concurrent findings of courts below decreeing a suit filed by the respondent for specific performance of a contract for the sale of agricultural land. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the land in dispute was under litigation in a pending pre-emption suit during the pendency of the specific performance claim, and further argued that there was no agreement for sale between the parties. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contention regarding the pending pre-emption suit was entirely without merit and directly opposed to her own written statement where she admitted the pre-emption suit had been decided. Furthermore, the court held that the factual controversy regarding the existence of the agreement was not raised before the High Court and could not be agitated for the first time before the apex court. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, affirming the judgments of the lower forums.
- Can a party take a plea in the Supreme Court that is directly opposed to their own pleadings in the written statement?
- Whether a claim for specific performance of an agreement to sell is barred merely because the land was previously under litigation in a pre-emption suit?
- Will the Supreme Court permit a party to raise a new factual controversy regarding the existence of an agreement for sale if it was not urged before the High Court?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of agricultural land. It was decreed by the trial Court. The petitioner's appeal before the Additional District Judge and the revision petition before the High Court failed. She now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The only contention raised in support of this petition is that the land in dispute was under litigation in a pre-emption suit which was still pending and that during the pendency of the said suit the respondent's claim for specific performance of the agreement could not be allowed.
3. This contention is entirely without merit and is against the petitioner's own pleadings. She had clearly stated in her written statement that the preemption suit had since been decided. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take a plea which is opposed to her pleadings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that there was no agreement for the sale of land between the parties. This plea which raises a factual controversy was not taken up by her before the High Court. We are not prepared to permit her to raise it before us. Leave is refused.
Cited by 7 cases
- Mirza Shakeel Ahmed and others vs Atif Tanveer Bhatti and another 2023 PLJ Islamabad 229, 2023 MLD 1715
- Muhammad Aslam vs Faqeer Muhammad and others 2021 [M] C L R 714, 2019 LHC 3450
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus FAQEER MUHAMMAD 2020 CLCN 21
- Allah Ditta vs Amjad Iqbal etc 2022 KLR Civil Cases 38
- ALLAH DITTA Versus AMJAD IQBAL 2020 CLCN 6
- Sher Alam and others vs Muhammad Haroon Khan and others 2020 MLD 514
- MERCK (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Manager and others vs MEMBER LABOUR 2014 PLC 164