1971 PLP 362 (SCMR)
SULEMAN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | 1971 PLP 362 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SULEMAN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 362 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 362 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLP 362 (SCMR) (SULEMAN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zia Mahmood Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 8th April 1971.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, Peshawar, dated the 18th March 1970, in R. S. A. No. 90 of 1970). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3)‑Special Leave to Appeal on a point not raised in Courts below‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of the West Pakistan High Court, Peshawar Bench, summarily dismissing a second appeal. The order discloses that before the High Court only one issue, namely, issue No. 4, dealing with the question of the value of the improvements, was pressed. This second appeal arose out of a pre‑emption suit which had been decreed by the Courts below upon concurrent findings on all points, including the question of the value of the improve ments alleged to have been made on the land by the vendee. The High Court, in these circumstances, took the view that it had no jurisdiction to interfere in second appeal in the face of such concurrent findings as regards not only, the amount of the improvements but also the nature of the improvements made. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition con cedes that he is not in a position to say that any other point was urged before the High Court but yet he endeavoured to argue that the decree for pre‑emption was an. illegal decree, as his client, the petitioner, was a co‑sharer in a joint khata. In these circumstances, according to the learned counsel, no decree for exclusive possession of the pre‑empted land could be passed until a partition had taken place between the joint‑holders of the khata. This point was, of course, not taken before the High Court or before any of the Courts below the High Court. No issue was raised with regard to this question, yet the learned counsel sought to argue that it was covered by issue No. 4 which was to the following effect :‑ "
4. Whether the defendant had made any improvements on the land, if so, to what extent and with what effect?" We are at a loss to appreciate how the question now sought to be raised by the learned counsel can be covered by this issue. The argument is entirely misconceived. In any event, we can not allow a new point to be raised at this stage for the first time. If there is any substance in the contention of the learned counsel then he may well oppose the execution of the decree on the ground that the decree passed is not executable, but he cannot be allowed to raise it as a ground for special leave for the first time in this Court. It is not a question of law relating to the jurisdiction of the Court. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.