REHMAT JEHAN BEGUM and 9 others vs ABDUR RASHID and 2 others
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed civil revision petitions filed by the respondents. The core legal dispute concerns the validity of permitting the respondents to deposit the balance sale consideration regarding two separate agreements of sale dated 21-4-1988, in accordance with decrees dated 6-11-1993, after the trial court had previously issued orders dated 20-4-1995 rejecting such deposits. The petitioners challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the respondents should not have been permitted to deposit the balance amounts, citing previous case law to support their position that the circumstances of the present case were comparable to matters where leave to appeal had been granted by the Supreme Court. Upon hearing the arguments presented by the counsel for the petitioners, the Supreme Court of Pakistan determined that the issues raised warranted further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the legality of the High Court's order, while simultaneously issuing an interim order directing that the petitioners' possession of the suit lands remain undisturbed pending the final outcome of the proceedings.
- Does a High Court have the authority to allow the deposit of balance sale consideration in revision proceedings after a trial court has previously rejected such a request?
- Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court in a civil revision matter involving sale agreements?
' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---We intend to dispose of the above petitions filed by the present petitioners against a common judgment dated 20-10-1999 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the Civil Revision Petitions bearing Nos. 862 and 863 of 1995 were allowed and the revision petitions permitted to deposit the balance sale consideration (1) of Rs,5,00,000 in relation to agreement of sale dated 21-4-1988 and (2) of Rs,4,00,000 in relation to another agreement of sale dated 21-4-1988 in terms of both the decrees dated 6-11-1993 within one month of the impugned judgment dated 20-10-1999, by reversing the orders of the trial Court dated 20-4-1995.
2. Mr. Khalil Ahmad Ansari, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of these petitions, has referred to leave granting orders in Muhammad Yousaf v. Naseer Ahmed (1996 SCMR 1406) and Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Muhammad Sadiq and another (1995 SCMR 105) for the proposition that the attending circumstances of these cases are akin to those of the cases in which leave has been granted by this Court. He has also referred to Muhammad Ismail v.
Muhammad Akbar Bhatti and 5 others (PLD 1997 Lahore 177) in support of his client's case that the other side should not have been allowed to deposit the balance of sale consideration of (1)
Rs,5,00,000 and (2) Rs,4,00,000, as done in the impugned judgment.
3. After hearing the learned counsel, we are inclined to grant leave in these cases as well as, to consider the above question.
4. Meantime, the possession of the petitioners over the suit lands shall not be disturbed.