AKBAR ALI SHAH AND 3 Others vs MUHAMMAD SHAH AND 4 Other
This is a petition for review of a prior order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from a dispute concerning the genuineness of signatures on a gift deed allegedly executed by a deceased donor. The core legal question was whether the High Court and the Supreme Court were justified in refusing to interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the District Judge regarding the signatures, and whether a re-appraisal of evidence is permissible in second appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the grounds urged merely criticized the approach of the Court rather than pointing out an error patent on the face of the record, which is a prerequisite for review. The Court laid down the principle that the District Judge, acting as the first appellate court, is the final court of fact, and findings of fact recorded by it cannot be interfered with or re-appraised in second appeal.
- Can a finding of fact recorded by a District Judge be interfered with in second appeal?
- Is a mere criticism of the approach followed by the Court a valid ground for seeking review of an order?
- Whether the final court of fact in the appellate hierarchy is the District Judge.
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This is a petition for review of this Court's order dated 16-3-1980.
2. We have heard Syed Iftikhar Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, who has submitted that the finding of fact given by the learned District Judge to the effect that the signatures of Sadiq Ali Shah deceased the alleged donor-signed although in English-were his signatures was based on the oral testimony of two witnesses but the learned District Judge had ignored a large number of documents which rebutted this assumption. In this situation, the High Court should not have accepted this finding but should itself have gone further into the matter. Furthermore, there was no concurrent finding by the trial Court and the District Judge on this aspect as the High Court appears to think but only that of the District Judge. The order of the High Court, therefore, was defective and should have been interfered with by this Court. The failure to do so require review.
3. It is obvious that the ground urged above for seeking review of this Court's order is not a ground on which review can be granted. No error in the order of this Court, which is patent on the record has been pointed out and it is only the approach followed by this Court that has been criticised.
4. It may, however, be observed that under the law, the final Court of fact is the appellate Court, namely, the District Judge and it is the finding recorded by him which cannot be interfered with in second appeal. Conse--quently, the High Court rightly held that the matter was concluded by a finding of fact and as the petitioner wanted a re-appraisal of the evidence, this was not possible in second appeal. No interference was called for in this order. Hence by not interfering with it no error was committed.
5. This petition has no force and is dismissed hereby.
Cited by 10 cases
- Dr. FARRUKH HASAN Versus SHUJAUDDIN AHMED 2019 CLCN 45
- 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
- AL-SAJID & CO and another vs ABDUL JABBAR and 11 others 2004 PLC 267
- SIRBALAND Versus ALLAH LOKE 1996 SCMR 575
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others vs Ch. MUHAMMAD MASOOD AKHTAR 1987 MLD 2371
- MUHAMMAD SAEED AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND 7 OTHERS 1984 CLC 3284
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, BANNU BRANCH through its Manager vs SAYED 1987 CLC 1103
- Messrs LIBERTY CLOTH STORES and another vs Messrs YAKUB & SONS and 3 1984 CLC 2809
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And Others vs Ch. MUHAMMAD MASOOD AKHTAR 1986 CLC 1016