HAFIZ MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND Another vs ABBAS KHAN AND Another
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision by the Sind High Court at Karachi, which had upheld the appellate court's finding regarding a dispute over the sale of a residential quarter. The core legal question concerned whether findings of fact recorded by a first appellate court can be interfered with in revision on the ground of incorrect appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court are final and binding, and cannot be interfered with merely on the basis that they are based on an incorrect appreciation of the evidence. The key principle laid down is that superior courts will not re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower appellate forums in the absence of any jurisdictional defect or misreading of record.
- Are findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court final and binding?
- Can a High Court interfere with findings of fact in revision merely on the basis of incorrect appreciation of evidence?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The respondent No. 1 filed a suit against the petitioners and his father Mohammad Hasan (respondent No. 2) praying for a permanent injunction to restrain them from selling or alienating a Quarter situate in Sector 37-A, Landi Colony, Karachi. The pertinent issue which arose on the pleadings of the parties was Issue No. 4 which is in the following terms :- "Has the quarter. In dispute been sold out to the respondent No. 2 (petitioner No 1 herein) by the plaintiff (Respondent No. 1 herein) for Rs.7,000 and documents were duly executed by the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) to defendant No. 2 (petitioner No. 1 herein). If so, what was its effect ?"
2. The learned 1st Additional District Judge at Karachi on appeal (the decision of the suit being in favour of the petitioners) however held this issue against the petitioners finding that it was not proved that the quarter in dispute had, indeed, been sold to the defendant No. 2 (Petitioner No. 1 herein) or that the documents in this behalf were duly executed by the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) in favour of defendant No. 2 (petitioner No. 1 herein). The petitioners therefore filed a revision before the Sind High Court at Karachi but the same was dismissed. Hence this petition.
3. He have heard Mr. Anwar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition. His main contention was that the finding recorded on Issue No. 4 was not "quite according to the correct appreciation of the record". In other words, the petitioners were criticizing the appreciation of evidence made by the learned Additional District Judge. Since, however, findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court are final A and binding and the same cannot be interfered with merely on the basis that the name are based on an incorrect appreciation of the evidence the High Court was could not have interfered with the said findings and by the some token this Court would refrain from going into this aspect of the matter.
Cited by 11 cases
- Messrs SARWAR BROTHERS COTTON GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY AND HUSSAIN OIL MILLS through Managing Partner and 4 others vs HABIB BANK LIMITED and another 2016 PLJ Lahore 103, 2016 CLD 2084
- M/s. SARWAR BROTHERS vs HABIB BANK LIMITED, etc. 2016 PLJ Lahore 103
- AKHTAR ALI Versus Mirza MUHAMMAD SARWAR BAIG 2006 MLD 1335
- GHAZANFAR ABBAS vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, JHANG and 3 others 2001 YLR 644
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN vs MUKHTAR AHMAD KHAN 2001 C.L.R. 39
- SIRBALAND Versus ALLAH LOKE 1996 SCMR 575
- Mst. SIDDIQAN and another vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and another 1993 MLD 1979
- RIASAT ALI and 9 others vs RAHIM BAKHSH and others 1992 CLC 2193
- Syed MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHAH And Others vs AMIR HUSSAIN SHAH And OTHER 1989 CLC 1712
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and 6 others 1986 MLD 863
- RASHIDUDDIN AND 2 OTHERS vs NIZAMUDDIN AND 6 OTHERS 1983 CLC 2950