Mst. ZAIBUN NISA AND Others vs Syed AMJAD HUSSAIN BOKHARI AND Another
This matter arises from a petition filed against the order of the High Court upholding the decision of the District Judge, which ordered the eviction of the petitioners on the ground of genuine bona fide personal need of the landlords. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the appellate authority in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the findings of fact recorded by the District Judge did not suffer from any omission or misreading of evidence, and therefore the High Court's refusal to interfere under its Constitutional jurisdiction was fully justified. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact by a lower appellate court based on proper appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction unless vitiated by misreading or non-reading of the record.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with findings of fact recorded by a District Judge in Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Does a finding of fact based on evidence suffer from infirmity merely due to re-appraisal without showing omission or misreading of the record?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-This is a petition against an order of the High Court dated 13-7-1980, whereby a Constitutional petition being W. P. 7681 /80 filed by the petitioners against the order of the learned District Judge dated 26-2-1980, whereby he accepting the appeal of the respondents/ landlords and holding that the landlords required the property in dispute for their genuine bona fide personal need ordered his eviction. The High Court has taken the view that the findings of fact recorded by the learned District Judge did not suffer from any omission or misreading of evidence and as such could not be interfered with in the course of Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. In this respect, the High Court relied upon Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (1). We have been taken through the evidence by the learned counsel but we are not able to find out any omission or misreading of the record and as such refusal of the High Court to interfere in such a matter seems to be quite justified.
2. The petition has no merit and is consequently dismissed. Learned counsel prayed for grant of time to enable his cli-.Nt to vacate this property. The request is accepted. We grant two months' time. The petitioner should voluntarily surrender the property to the landlords without damage and should continue to pay the rent in the meantime regularly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.