Mst. MUSSARRAT BIBI vs TAJ DIN and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court, which had decreed the respondent's suit for declaration of ownership regarding a specific property (Ihata No. 80). The petitioner challenged the validity of an allotment order and a subsequent order by the Collector, Mianwali. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which affirmed the respondent's title and rejected the petitioner's claims, were based on a misreading or non-reading of evidence or suffered from any legal infirmity. The Supreme Court held that the three lower courts had thoroughly examined the relevant documentary and oral evidence and reached consistent factual findings. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to raise the issue of the Civil Court's jurisdiction at the appropriate stage. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact by competent courts, absent any demonstrated illegality, misreading, or non-reading of evidence, are not open to interference in revisional or appellate jurisdiction.
- Can an objection regarding the jurisdiction of a Civil Court be entertained for the first time at the revisional stage if no issue was framed or requested at the trial stage?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by three lower courts?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the lower courts have consistently evaluated all relevant oral and documentary evidence without error?
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.- Taj Din respondent brought a suit in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mianwali praying foi a declaration that he was the owner of Ihata No,80 of Chak No,3-4/ML, Tehsil and District Mianwali; that Mst. Mussarrat Bibi petitioner-defendant had nothing to do with the same; that the allotment order, dated 16-6-1958 passed by the Settlement Officer, Bakkhar in favor of the said petitioner-respondent No,3 was illegal and fraudulent and further that the latter order, dated 4-11-1989 passed by the Collector, Mianwali was also illegal and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial. Judge through a judgment dated 29-3-1995. Mst. Mussarrat Bibi impugned the said judgment and decree before the learned. District Judge by way of appeal which appeal was dismissed through a judgment dated 18-12-2000 of a learned Additional District Judge at Mianwali. This led the said Mst.
Mussarrat Bibi to the Lahore High Court with a petition under section 115 of the C.P.C. Bearing C.R.
No,1440 of 2001 which also met the same fate through a judgment dated 11-12-2002 of the Lahore High Court.
2. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at some length and we have also perused the available record in the light of the submissions made by him.
4. There is a consistent finding of the three learned Courts regarding the factual controversy. All the said learned Courts including the Honourable revisional Court had duly considered the entire relevant evidence available on record including Exhs.P.2, P.3, P.4, P.5, P.10, P.12, D.2, D.3 and D.4. The said learned Courts had also examined the effect of the oral evidence led at the trial including the statements P.W.1, P.W.2, D.W.1, D.W.2, D.W.3 and C.W.1. The learned High Court had also found that no issue was framed with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with the matter in question nor were any steps taken by the defendant to claim any such issue as a result whereof no objection to the jurisdiction .Of the Civil Court could be entertained at the revisional stage.
5. Having thus, examined all aspects of the matter, we find that the concurrent findings and the consistent view of the three learned Courts were not open to any exception as it could not be shown that the said findings and conclusions were the result of any illegality or any misreading or non-reading of evidence by the three competent Courts.
6. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. .
Cited by 2 cases
- Fakhar-ud-Din Butt (Deceased) through L.Rs., etc. vs Manzoor Baqai, etc. 2016 KLR Civil Cases 32
- Capital Development Authority vs Mst. Fanzeem Bibi 2015 C.L.R.1110