ABDUL AZIZ and others vs ALLAH RAKHA
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute concerning the right of pre-emption. The petitioners challenged the concurrent findings of three lower courts, which had ruled against them, affirming the respondent-plaintiff's superior right of pre-emption as a collateral of the vendor. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the respondent-plaintiff lacked a superior right of pre-emption due to insufficient evidence of collateral status, and whether the plaintiff had waived this right by associating with the sale transaction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any misreading or non-reading of evidence by the lower courts. The Court found that the pedigreetable, though not formally exhibited, was requisitioned from the Central Record Room and available on the record, and that oral evidence sufficiently established the collateral relationship. Furthermore, the Court held that the plea of waiver could not be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court when it was not agitated in the lower courts. The judgment reinforces the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on available evidence will not be disturbed absent clear error.
- Can a plea of waiver of the right of pre-emption be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not agitated in the lower courts?
- Does the failure to formally exhibit a document, such as a pedigreetable, invalidate a finding of fact if the document was requisitioned and available on the record?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
ORDER
ABDUR RAHMAN KHAN, J.-- The sole point agitated in the High Court in this case was The respondent-plaintiff had no superior right of pre-emption and is not collateral of the vendor. This point has been decided against the petitioners by all the three Courts and we could not be shown any misreading or non-reading of any evidence. It was simply urged that the pedigreetable has not been exhibited. However, it could not be denied that the pedigreetable has been requisitioned from the Central Record Room and was available on the record. Moreover, the oral evidence as discussed in the impugned judgment also appears to be sufficient to prove that the vendor was the collateral of the plaintiff. It was next submitted that the plaintiff had associated himself with the disputed sale transaction and, therefore, has waived right of pre-emption. This point does not find mention in the impugned judgment nor in the judgment of the Appellate Court, therefore, it could not be agitated for the first time. Reliance on Khan Muhammad Yusuf Khan Khattak Vs. S.M. Ayub and 2 others (PLD 1973 SC 160) about mode of proving a document is misplaced.
2. In view of the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed and .