ALLAH RAKHA vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning the possession of land following a sale transaction. The petitioner sought to challenge his dispossession by arguing that his possessory rights should have been presumed upon the completion of the sale of the suit land. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that this specific legal contention regarding the presumption of possessory rights was never raised by the petitioner during the trial proceedings or at the appellate stage. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner could not be permitted to introduce new arguments or agitate this issue for the first time at the stage of the petition for leave to appeal. Furthermore, the Court observed that there existed concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner, which had been upheld by the High Court. Finding no merit in the petition, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby affirming the lower courts' findings.
- Can a party raise a new legal contention regarding possessory rights for the first time at the stage of a petition for leave to appeal?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts subject to interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of a legal error?
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---The submission now being made before us, in support of this petition, is that the possessory rights of the petitioner had to be presumed after the sale of the land in question had been affected and therefore, he could not have been dispossessed of the suit- land.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been confronted with the pleadings. This question was never raised either at the trial or even at the appellate level. In this view of the matter, the petitioner could not be permitted to agitate this issue at this belated stage. This was the only question urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It may, however, be added that on the factual plain, there is a concurrent finding against the petitioner which findings were maintained even by the Honourable High Court.
3. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.