Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court

Dispute raised in petition for leave to appeal, related to an individual grievance and no question of law of public importance was involved to warrant interference under Art. 212 (3) of Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Supreme Court cannot refuse to interfere.

When a defect comes to the notice of Supreme Court after grant of leave the position is entirely changed and it shall be deemed that whatever the defect was it had been condoned by the Court by implication

Appeal has to be decided on merits if leave has once been granted.

Concurrent findings of fact reached by Courts below, held, would call for no interference.

O. XXVII, r. 1-Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), S. 3Leave to appeal to Supreme Court - Mesne profit, payment of Temporary injunction granted by consent and under taking of respondents-Having obtained stay on basis of undertaking, held, respondents cannot question such order.

Appeal to Supreme Court-Question of fact neither disputed in constitutional petition nor in arguments before High Court-Held, cannot be allowed to be challenged in appeal before Supreme Court

Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98.-[Question of fact].

Appeal to Supreme Court-Petitioner's counsel admittedly not appearing in trial Court on date of bearing-Question of fact-As to whether Attorney of petitioner, allegedly present, failed to appear despite case having been called out-Held, cannot be resolved in proceedings before Supreme Court.

Art. 185(3) read with Settlement Scheme No. VIII-Transfer of house - Appeal to Supreme Court - Petitioner never challenging order of transfer initially made in favour of respondent nor agitating order of remand passed by High Court-Conclusion of Settlement Authorities that no form filed by petitioner was available on file and that property standing transferred to respondent same was not available for retransfer upheld by High Court-View taken b High Court Held, not open to exception.

Arts. 185 & 199 read with Settlement Scheme No. VIII-Transfer of plot-Appeal to Supreme Court-Writ jurisdiction-Conclusions of fact drawn by Settlement Authorities based on inspection of spot and history of case-Facts sought to be considered by petitioner already considered and decision taken - Question of fact explored, examined and decided by competent Tribunal and High Court finding its hands tied in constitutional jurisdiction in interfering with same Held, such questions cannot be reappraised by Supreme Court.

Arts. 185 (3) & 199 - Writ jurisdiction - Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Arrears of salary -Declaratory decree for arrears of salary-Whether can be enforced and implemented through agency of writ petition-Leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court to determine such question-Arrears of salary-Declaratory decree-Specific Relief Act (I of 1887), S. 42.

Arts. 199 & 185 (3) and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38 (3)-Grievance petition of Railway employee accepted by Labour Court-Appeal before Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed-Order of Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal challenged before High Court in Writ Petition contending employee having been a civil servant and not a worker and as such not amenable to jurisdiction of Labour Court-Such contention not pressed before Labour Appellate Tribunal-Railway authorities deemed to have accepted finding cf Labour Court hence no longer open to them to re-agitate jurisdictional point in constitutional jurisdiction-Leave petition challenging order of High Court dismissed.

S. 10 (3)-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Zina-bil-Jabr- Statement of prosecutrix and her mother supported by medical evidence, Chemical, Examiner's Report and incriminating recoveries made soon after occurrence

Case, against accused, held, established-Leave refused in circumstances.

- Art. 185 (3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Question of fact tentatively decided against petitioner by three Courts by reference to record made available by parties-Held, cannot be determined by Supreme Court even for purposes of interim relief.-[Question of fact].

- Art. 185(3) read with Civil' Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 96Leave to appeal to Supreme Court.-Granted to consider question whether despite pendency of appeal, suit, decreed in favour of party on certain conditions, can be held to stand dismissed on account of non-performance of such conditions and decree of trial Court can be treated as having disappeared and become ineffective and, therefore, in-executable.

-Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Question of fact Contentions raised already attended to in fair detail by High Court View taken by Courts below found to be based on material before them-Held, does not call for interference.-[Question of fact].

S. 13-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-High Court declining to intervene with issues raised in appeal on ground of same being relatable to questions of fact-View taken by High Court, held, not open to exception-All points having been fully dealt with by High Court and cogent reasons having been given for its decision, petition for leave To appeal dismissed

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), ART 185

Art. 185 (3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-High Court on a reasonable analysis of evidence reaching the conclusion of respondent alone and not acquitted accused, having been responsible for firing at complainant party - Submissions made relating to appreciation of evidence and not, to any legal error in appraisal of evidence-Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

____ O. XVII, r. 3-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Chit showing deposit of process fee for summoning witness not produced before lower Court-Clear statement on contrary made by petitioner's counsel in trial Court admitting petitioners having not brought any evidence due to some misunderstanding -Chit produced in Supreme Court in circumstances not possible to be taken into account for determining correctness of order made by trial Court and upheld by High Court-Orders of lower Courts, held, to be tested on basis of material placed before. such Courts at relevant time and not on basis, of chit produced in Supreme Court.

Art. 185(3)-Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court-Petitioner collecting certain number of bags of Atta from Rationing Controller for distribution to members of his association-Petitioner, as such, Held, possessed no personal right in matter and his licence could in circumstances be cancelled without serving a show-cause notice on him.

Art. 185 (3)-Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court-Question whether petitioner's suit had been fixed for hearing or not-Question of fact not determinable without record-No documents before Supreme Court to support petitioner's argument-Plea of date in suit being not a date for hearing not taken by petitioner in trial Court and first appellate Court-Held, petitioner cannot be permitted to press petition for special leave on question not raised in two Courts below.-[Question of fact].

Art. 185 (3)-Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court 'Point not taken in any of Courts below in form urged before Supreme Court Not allowed to be urged for first time before Supreme Court.

Ground urged before -Supreme Court not taken at any stage of proceedings including those in High Court-Such ground, held, cannot be permitted to be raised for first time in leave to appeal proceedings.

Art. 185(3)-Leavc to appeal to Supreme Court-Petitioner conveniently vague about precise relief sought by him-Petitioner's contentions even if accepted as correct, petitioner's application in dispute, held, could not be allowed due to its being not to be disposed of without allowing both parties to produce evidence in support of their respective contentions and no opportunity having been given to respondent to' produce evidence case had to be remanded to trial Court.

Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Petitioner's appeal still pending adjudication on merits in High Court-Entertainment of petition against interim order and. hearing of case piecemeal, held, not desirable-Petition dismissed as incompetent with observation that petitioner would be at liberty to raise all or any of contentions raised in instant proceedings against judgment finally disposing of appeal in case of its being decided against him.

Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Grounds of writ petitions filed in High Court containing only one contention, viz. case being one of no evidence, and other two contentions raised before Supreme Court not even alluded to in writ petitions-All contentions requiring factual inquiry for satisfactory resolution, held, could neither be urged before High Court in writ proceed in nor before Supreme Court in proceedings for leave to appeal.

Art. 58 (3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-High Court on appeal being filed calling for record of ejectment proceeding but refusing to stay ejectment-Refusal to stay ejectment prima facie appearing to be inconsistent with order calling for records-Such ground sufficient for grant of leave to appeal-Petitioner, in addition, also appearing to have instituted a suit for declaration of statutory rent being only half of what he had been paying and there being in consequence a large sum to his credit in landlord's hands-Leave to appeal granted-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance

Art. 185 (3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-High Court justifiably concluding from record and holding impugned order of Settlement Commissioner being inviolable and not liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction-Orders of High Court not suffering from any material irregularity-Case, held, not fit for interference with finding of fact recorded by Settlement Commissioner and upheld by High Court.

Art. 185(3)-Special leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Petition filed for special leave to appeal against a majority judgment of High Court accepting 16 writ petitions filed by a number of persons including two respondents in instant case-Petitioner also filing a miscellaneous application for suspension of operation of impugned judgment Petitioners having filed petition for special leave only against two respondents in instant case, Court, held, seized of matter only in so far as it affected such two respondents-Decision of miscellaneous application involving determination of complicated questions of law, including interpretation of Supreme Court's judgment (P L D 1977 S C 657) relating to scope of Courts to adjudicate upon actions of Government and Martial Law authorities on touchstone of doctrine of necessity and likely to affect a large number of cases, matter, held, requires to be placed before a larger Bench of three or more Judges and in meanwhile operation of impugned judgment suspended as against res

Art. 185 (31-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Precise contention as raised before Supreme Court never advanced by petitioners before any of competent authorities or even in High Court-Supreme Court, in circumstances, held, not called upon to express any opinion on such new contention.

Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Dispute having arisen between parties as. to fixation of terms and conditions of respondent's service, Supreme Court holding respondent entitled to emoluments (a) R s. 1,400 p. m: in addition to his Army pension in terms of contract offered to him and accepted by him and to be not entitled to any other benefits and as such under liability to refund any amounts drawn by him in excess of his true entitlement-Parties not able to resolve their dispute in spite of such final order and on demand being made to refund specified excess amount respondent filing writ petition-High Court holding appropriate cause for respondent in such case being to seek further clarification on points raised by him from Supreme Court and adjourning writ petition sine die but respondent not moving Supreme Court for any clarification in pursuance to High Court's order-Eventually High Court ordering petitioner to hear respondent and decide dispute in light of Supreme Court's decision and .to

Supreme Court does not at leave to appeal stage embark upon a detailed inquiry into factual matters-Discretion exercised by High Court in not allowing bait to petitioners not appearing to have been exercised arbitrarily or perversely, order, held, requires no interference-Criminal Procedure Code2V of 1898), S. 497/498.-

Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Pleas involving mixed questions of law and fact-Held, cannot be allowed to be raised for first time in Supreme Court.

Held, cannot be allowed to be raised for first time in Supreme Court.

Art. 185(3)-Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court-Point not argued in High Court-Held, cannot be allowed to be raised for first time in Supreme Court.-[Leave to appeal].

Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-High Court's order supported by some material-Cannot be interfered with by Supreme Court unless perverse.

Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Case in High Court still at motion stage and not admitted to regular hearing-Points on merits of case both on legal as well as factual plane as raised before Supreme Court yet to be attended to by High Court Supreme Court declined to go into such questions and left them to be first attended to by High Court particularly in matter of bail keeping in view short sentence involved in case.

Nothing factually wrong shown in concurrent view of Settlement authority and High Court nor any case of violation of any fundamental principle of law made out so as to warrant interference with order of High Court-Petition dismissed.

Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Points raised in petition already considered in earlier petition on same subject in respect of same accused and repelled by Supreme Court-Petition dismissed.

S. 302 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court-Concurrent findings of Courts below supported by evidence of three out of five witnesses-Held, any error of law in concurrent finding could not be found in circumstances.-[Leave to appeal].

Art. 185(3)-Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court-Condonation of delay-Supreme Court, held, generally condones delay in criminal cases.-[Condonation of delay].

Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Substantial justice done -between parties in two rounds of litigation-Petitioner having no case in law or equity-Extension of indulgence of Court to petitioner, in circumstances, held, would tantamount to perpetuating injustice, all Courts having concurrently found him to have defaulted in payment of rent West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13.

Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Reasons given by lower Court prima facie appearing based on surmises and conjectures and not on an; legal evidence

Leave to appeal granted to examine such reasons.

Art. 185(3)-Petition for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court-Judgment delivered by High Court at Dacca on 5th May 1971, whereas petition for leave to appeal filed in Supreme Curt on 16-11-1973Petition seemingly barred by limitation-Considering, however, conditions in East Pakistan being abnormal during relevant period subsequently culminating in military action in December 1971 and leading to birth of Bengla Desh, delay condoned.-[Leave to appeal-Condonation of delay].

Petition for leave to appeal held, merited dismissal on such ground as well.-[Leave to appeal] .

Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Advocate-General giving undertaking to gel complete challan presented in competent Court by end of month and to get case of co-accused separated for proceeding a order S. 512, Cr. P. C.-Petition seeking bail allowed to be withdrawn in circumstances and trial Court directed to expedite trial so as to complete evidence within 6 months Petitioners directed to seek bail from trial Court, if so advised.[Bail].

Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Some of observations made by High Court in its order not in keeping with record produced before Supreme Court-Moat of ouch discrepancies nonetheless, immaterial and not appearing to have affected impugned order of High Court-Erroneous observation by High Court of there being no explanation in F. I. R. about injuries found on person of accused, however, could not, at same time, be vouchsafed with certainty to haw not gone to influence High Court in releasing accused respondent on bail-Supreme Court, in circumstances, proceeded to apply its own independent mind afresh to facts and circum, stances of case.-[Evidence].

Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Objection that Government was not responsible for acts of its employees neither raised in trial Court nor in High Court- Submission about nonjoinder of necessary parties expressly dropped in 13igb Court-Objection not allowed to be raised at leave to appeal stage in Supreme Court-Contention that counsel's concession on a question of law could not- bind party concerned, held, correct, yet concession having been made with reference to S. 99, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, proper concession-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 99.-[Leave to appeal to Supreme Court].

O. II, r. 3 -Petition for leave, to appeal -Delay-Condonation-Petitions and other proceedings being received by Supreme Court during vacation on - all working days (except Saturdays) and no ambiguity existing on point, contention of petitioner being under impression of limitation not running during long vacation of Court, held, no bona fide excuse for condonation of delay.

[Condonation of delay].

Art. 185(3)-Special Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court-Petition barred by 432 days and no sufficient cause shown for such long delay-No interference possible-Point urged not taken up before lower Court-Held, could not be taken up for first time before Supreme Court.-[Supreme Court-Condonation of delay].

Forfeiture of security bond-Presiding Officer of Court himself away from Headquarters on date fixed for hearing surety-leave granted to consider legal effect of order passed without serving further notice on surety-Criminal Procedure-Code (V of 1898), S. 514.