1981 S C M R 687

Present : Muhammad Haleem and G. Safdar Shah, JJ

C. P. No. 1006 of 1978

ISMAIL AND ANOTHER-Petitioners

versus

Mst. RAZIA BEGUM AND 3 OTHERS-Respondents

C. P. No. 1010 of 1978

BASHIR AHMAD AND 4 OTHERS Petitioners

Versus

Mst. RAZIA BEGUM AND 3 OTHERS-Respondents

Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 1C06 and 1010 of 1978, decided on 11th March, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgments and orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20-I-1978, passed
in R. S. As. Nos. 830 and 847 of 1978 respectively).

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --

---O. VI, r. 14-Failure to sign plaint-Plaintiffs all along prosecuting heir suits with diligence and also
appearing as their own witnesses-on-signing of plaint by plaintiffs at proper stage in such circum-
lances, held, a mere irregularity-District Judge entirely justified directing rectification of such
irregularity-Defendant's counsel 'so not able to show as to how such irregularity prejudiced defendant-
Objection, hence, only technical particularly when substantial justice done between parties.-[Plaint].

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--

---Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Objection that a part of land in dispute having belonged to Municipality,
hence no decree of pry emption could be granted in favour of petitioners raised for first time in
Supreme Court-Objection evidently involving inquiry into facts, held, cannot be permitted to be raised
in Supreme Court for first time.

Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on -Record for Petitioners (in
both the Petitions).

Nemo for Respondents (in both the Petitions).

Date of hearing 11th March, 1980.

ORDER

G. SAIDAR SHAH, J.--The dispute in this case relates to112 kanals and 14 marlas of land situate at
Zafarwal, Tehsil Narowali, District Sialkot. The land in question was sold to the petitioners. But in
order to pre-empt the sale transaction the respondents filed two suits against him on the ground that
being co-sharers in the khata, they had the superior right.

Vide his judgment dated 28-7-19.75, however, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suits of the
respondents on the ground that they had neither signed the plaint nor had verified the same. Against the
judgments of the trial Judge, the respondents went in appeals to the Court of the District Judge, who
allowed the same and remanded the cases to the learned trial Judge to get the plaints signed and
verified by the respondents. On receipt of the cases on remand, the learned trial Judge, vide his
judgments, dated 21-2-1978, complied with the said directions given to him by the District Judge, and
thereafter decreed the suits of the respondents. Being aggrieved, the, petitioners first went in appeals to
the Court of the District Judge, but the same were dismissed and thereafter their second appeals were
dismissed by the High Court in limine, vide judgments, dated 20-10-1979.
In seeking leave to appeal against the judgments of the High Court, the learned counsel for the
petitioners contended-

(1) that the signatures of the respondents had been obtained on the plaints after the expiry of one year
and so their suits were evidently barred by time ; and

(2) that a part of the land in dispute in fact belonged to the Municipality, and consequently no decree of
pre-emotion could be granted in favour of the petitioners.

In so far as the first contention is concerned it has no force in it. The learned counsel conceded before
us that the respondents had all along prosecuted their suits with diligence and had appeared as their
own witnesses. In these circumstances, the non-signing of the plaints by them at the proper stage was a
mere irregularity, and consequently the learned District Judge was entirely justified to direct that the
said irregularity may be rectified. Furthermore, the learned counsel has not been able to show as to how
he has been prejudiced, therefore, the objection raised by him is only technical the moreso when
substantial justice has been done between the parties.

As to the second contention urged by the learned counsel, suffice it to say that he has raised the same
for the first time in this Court, and consequently it cannot be permitted to be raised, as it would
evidently involve an inquiry into facts.

These petitions, therefore, fail and are hereby dismissed.

Petitions dismissed.