Pakistan Case LawABDUL AZIZ Versus MUHAMMAD ASHIQ
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision and affirmed the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two courts below decreeing the respondent's suit for pre-emption regarding the suit land, while granting an additional amount to the petitioner vendee. The core legal question raised pertained to whether certain judgments of the Supreme Court had altered the established view on waiver and estoppel in pre-emption suits. The Supreme Court held that it was unnecessary to resolve this question because both the trial court and the appellate court had recorded concurrent findings of fact holding that the respondent was not estopped from claiming the right of pre-emption. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, establishing that concurrent factual findings on issues such as waiver and estoppel obviate the need to examine broader jurisprudential conflicts regarding earlier precedents when such findings decisively settle the merits.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding waiver and estoppel render it unnecessary to examine alleged conflicts in earlier Supreme Court precedents?
- Does a vendee become entitled to an additional amount when a pre-emption suit is decreed?
- When can leave to appeal be refused in a pre-emption matter involving concurrent findings?
AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 5-4-1993 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No, 1716 of 1986 filed by the petitioner, dismissing the same and affirming the judgment/decrees of the two Courts below i,e. The Civil Judge, Kasur and the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur dated 7-11-1984 and 17-7-1986 respectively, decreeing the respondent's suit for pre-emption in respect of the suit land.
It may be observed that the learned Additional District Judge while affirming the judgment/decree of the Trial Court granted additional amount of Rs,4,000 to the petitioner vendee. The petitioner has, therefore, filed above petition against the above judgment of the learned Judge in Chambers.
2.In support of the above petition Chaudhry Khurshid Ahmad, learned Advocate Supreme Court; appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge in Chambers was not justified in holding that the judgments of this Court in the case of Jam Pari v. Muhammad Abdullah (1992 SCM R 786), and in the case of Muhammad Amin v. Maqbool Ahmad (1993 SCM R 498) has changed the view taken by this Court in the earlier case, namely, Nasir Ahmad v. Irshad Ahmad (PLD 1984 SC 403) on the question of waiver and estoppel.
It is not necessary to go into the above question. In the present case, as the above observation does not affect the merits of the case as the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court had held that the respondent was not estopped from claiming his right of pre-emption while deciding Issue No, 1. In presence of above concurrent finding there was no need to enter into the above question.
Leave is, therefore, refused.
Judges on this bench
- Ajmal Mian2,984 judgments
- Wali Muhammad Khan585 judgments