THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KHAIRPUR vs IMAM BAKHSH
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below establishing that the correct date of birth of the respondent was 25 May 1916 rather than 25 May 1905, as erroneously entered in his service book. Consequently, his retirement from the post of Salt Inspector in the Industries Department of the Government of West Pakistan with effect from 24 May 1965 was held to be illegal and void, and the decree in his favor was maintained. The core legal question concerned the propriety of interfering with concurrent findings of fact regarding a date of birth in a second appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was entirely justified in declining to interfere with these concurrent factual determinations under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact affirmed by the lower appellate court are binding in second appeal and do not warrant interference or the grant of special leave to appeal.
- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a date of birth in a second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether retirement based on an incorrect date of birth entered in a service book is illegal and void when concurrent findings establish the true date of birth?
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is concluded by concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below that the correct date of birth of the respondent was 25 of May 1916 and not the 25May 1905 as entered in his service book.On that finding the retirement of the petitioner with effect from 24 May 1965 from the post of salt inspector in the industries Department of the Government of west Pakistan was wrongful him from service was illegal and void was therefore rightly decreed.
2. The High Court in the circumstances was right in declining to interfere in a second appeal under section 100, C. P. C., with the finding of fact recorded by the first Court of appeal on the question of age. No ground for grant of special leave to appeal is thus made to appear. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 4 cases
- ARIF ZAMAN vs PIR DOST ALI SHAH through Legal Heirs and others 2005 MLD 98
- Arif Zaman vs Pir Dost Ali Shah And Other K.L.R. 2008 Civil Cases 20
- NIAZ ALI and 16 others vs MUHAMMAD DIN through Legal Heirs and others 1993 CLC 1374
- NIAZ ALI and 16 others vs MUHAMMAD DIN through Legal Heirs and 13 others 1993 PLD Lahore 33