2003 PLP 1311 (SCMR)
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD QASIM — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1311 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | ---Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ |
| Parties | LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD QASIM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1311 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1311 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: ---Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1311 (SCMR) (LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD QASIM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rasheed Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 5th June, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
On appeal front the judgment/order dated 26-3-2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.611 of 2001).
S. 115
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Revisional jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below
Trial Court and Appellate Courts after taking into consideration material available on record granted relief to the respondent
High Court had also examined the case in depth and formed opinion that the findings of fact recorded by the Trial and Appellate Court did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity
No piece of evidence was misread by the subordinate Courts or any principle of law had been violated by them, revision petition was rightly dismissed by High Court being not competent
Supreme Court concurred with the observations of High Court
Leave to appeal was refused. Haji Rana Muhammad Shabbir Ahmad Khan v. Government of Punjab Province, Lahore PLD 1994 SC 1 and Mussarat Sultana v. Muhammad Saeed 1997 SCMR 1866 ref.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
Leave to appeal has been sought against judgment/order, dated 26-3-2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Civil Revision No.611 of 2001 filed by petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Short facts leading to the filing of instant petition are that respondent filed a suit for declaration with the averments that he participated in the auction of plot held by petitioners and being the highest bidder he deposited Rs.1,94,300 as earnest money. The petitioners after confiscating the earnest money and also issued Demand Notice No. 6, dated 3-3-1991 directing the respondent to deposit the balance amount of plot in question. The respondent prayed that demand of the petitioners may be declared as illegal, void, having no legal effect. It was further prayed that letter, dated 19-3-1991 for forfeiture of amount of Rs.1,94,300 may also be declared as illegal and void directing the petitioners to refund the said amount. The suit was resisted by the petitioners both on legal as well as factual grounds.
3. Learned trial Court after observing codal formalities decreed the suit vide judgment/decree-dated 20-11-1994. Being dissatisfied from the decree of trial Court petitioners preferred appeal, which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Lahore by means, of judgment/decree, dated 4-11-2000. The petitioners assailed both the judgments/decrees of the Courts below before Lahore High Court, Lahore by filing Civil Revision No.611 of 2001, which has been dismissed by means of impugned judgment, dated 26-3-2002. As such instant petition. for leave to appeal has beep filed.
4. Learned counsel contended that learned High Court failed to consider the terms and conditions of the contract published in the newspaper, therefore, the view taken in maintaining the judgment of the Courts below is not correct, thus, warrants interference by this Court.
5. It may be noted that learned trial and Appellate Courts, after taking into consideration material available on record granted relief to the respondent. Learned High Court has also examined the case in depth and formed opinion that as the findings of fact recorded by the trial and Appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality and irregularity because the learned counsel of the petitioners failed to point out any piece of evidence which was misread by the subordinate Courts or an, principle of law has been violated, therefore, revision petition is not competent. We are inclined to concur with such observations of learned A High Court following the principle laid down in the judgments Haji Rana Muhammad Shabbir Ahmad Khan v. Government of Punjab Province, Lahore (PLD 1994 SC 1) and Mussarat Sultana v. Muhammad Saeed (1997 SCMR 1866). Thus for the foregoing reasons we see no merit in the instant petition which is dismissed and leave declined. M.H./L-24/S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed