Mst. ASGHARI BEGUM vs CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LAHORE AND Another
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition seeking a review of the Court's earlier order dated 2nd October 1969, which had refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The petitioner had sought permission to pursue her civil suit in forma pauperis for the recovery of Rs. 50,000 against the Corporation of the City of Lahore for the alleged illegal demolition of her house. Both the trial court and the High Court found that the petitioner possessed sufficient means to pay the court-fee, having obtained evacuee property valued at Rs. 6,000 as a permanent transferee. The core legal question addressed is whether a review of the previous order refusing special leave to appeal is warranted based on findings of fact regarding the petitioner's financial capacity. The Supreme Court held that no valid ground or reason was established to review the prior order, as it was founded on concurrent findings of fact regarding the petitioner's ability to pay the court-fee. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Can the Supreme Court review an order refusing special leave to appeal based on concurrent findings of fact?
- Does the ownership of evacuee property as a permanent transferee constitute sufficient means to pay court-fees in a pauper suit?
- Under what circumstances will a review petition against an order refusing leave to appeal be entertained?
ORDER
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This petition seeks a review of our order dated the 2nd of October 1969, in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 233 of 1969. We had refused to interfere with the orders of the Courts below refusing permission to the petitioner to pursue her suit in forma paupers for recovery of Rs. 50,000 from the Corporation of the City of Lahore on account of the alleged illegal demolition of her house by the Corporation. The trial Court as well as the High Court have found that the petitioner had obtained an evacuee property as a permanent transferee, which was of the value of Rs. 6,000, and she was thus possessed of sufficient means to defray the expenses of court- fee on her suit.
2. No reason is made out for review of our order dated the 2nd of October 1969, which had merely proceeded on a finding of fact reached by the Courts below as the ability of the petitioner to pay the court-fee on her suit.
3. The petition is dismissed.