AZIZ-UR-REHMAN and anothers vs Haji AURANGZEB through Legal Heirs and another
This matter arises from a petition filed by the petitioners-defendants impugning the concurrent judgments of three lower courts which concluded that the respondent had successfully established his case regarding the disputed property measuring 10 feet 10 inches by 13 feet 2-1/2 inches. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether interference was warranted under constitutional jurisdiction against concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts based on evidence. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the Supreme Court held that it is not required to undertake a detailed re-examination of evidence when the trial court and the first appellate court have drawn conclusions consistent with the evidence without any perversity or defect in their judgments. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and declined leave to appeal, affirming that concurrent factual findings free of perversity will not be disturbed.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is a detailed examination of evidence required by the Supreme Court when lower courts have drawn conclusions consistent with the evidence?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. 'JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioners-defendants impugn the judgments of the three Courts below. We have heard learned counsel for both sides and have also gone through the impugned judgments and record with their able assistance. The Courts below have come to the conclusion that the respondent had established his case in respect of the area measuring 10 feet 10 inches x 13 feet 2-1/2 inches which is subject matter of the present dispute. While exercising our jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, we are not required to embark upon any detailed examination of evidence because the two Courts of fact i.e. Trial Court and the learned Additional District Judge in first appeal, have drawn their conclusions which are consistent with the evidence and there is no perversity or any defect in their judgments. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is decline.