MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others vs AMEER BUX (deceased) through His
This matter arises from civil petitions directed against the concurrent judgments of the lower appellate court and the High Court, whereby the respondents' pre-emption suits regarding the suit land were decreed in their favor. The core legal questions involved the acceptance of an application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure without allegedly affording the petitioners an opportunity to rebut, and the issue of deficiency in court fees. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the grievance regarding additional evidence was neither raised in the memorandum of revision before the High Court nor properly urged in the petition grounds, and further noted that official revenue records spanning decades were already on record. Regarding the court fee deficiency, the Court declined to examine the issue at such a belated stage. The key principle laid down is that procedural grievances regarding additional evidence not raised in the lower appellate or revisional forums and lacking specific prejudice cannot be entertained at the leave-to-appeal stage.
- Can a party raise a grievance regarding the acceptance of additional evidence for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not urged in the revision petition before the High Court?
- Whether the Supreme Court will examine an objection regarding deficiency in court fees raised at a belated stage of the proceedings?
- Order XLI Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
ABDUR RAHMAN KHAN, J.-- By this common order, we propose to decide Civil Petitions Nos. 1091-L and 1092-L of 1999 as questions of law and facts are common in both of them.
2. Plaintiffs in these petitions were vendees of the suit land. Respondents as plaintiffs pre-empted this transition. Their suits were dismissed by the learned Trial Judge. However, in appeal, the judgment of the Trial Court was set aside and the suits were decreed. The said judgment of the appellate Court was affirmed in revision petition by the High Court through the impugned judgment. These petitions have been moved to assail the legality of the impugned judgment.
3. The main grievance urged before us was that the application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was accepted without affording the petitioners an opportunity to rebut.
This was, however, conceded that this point was neither taken in the memo of revision in the High Court nor it finds any mention in the impugned judgment. Even in this Court, in the grounds of petition, this point has not been specifically raised. Even otherwise when the learned counsel was asked as to what the petitioners wanted to produce in rebuttal, he merely stated that the additional evidence led in the case did not pertain to the disputed land. In any case, the Jamabandis right from the year, 1931 have been brought on the record and there is nothing to show that this point of not affording opportunity had been seriously urged, as such, at this belated stage, it cannot be urged.
4. We are not inclined to go into the detail in the second point regarding deficiency in the Court fee and on that account incompetency of the petitions as it is too late to undertake this exercise at such a belated stage.