MAKHNA AND TWO OTHERS vs GHULAM SHABIR AND OTHERS
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' civil revision against concurrent findings of the lower courts. The dispute originated from a suit for permanent injunction and possession regarding 23 kanals and 10 marlas of land, which the trial court decreed in favor of the respondent based on evidence, including the testimony of a Patwari and a report from a Local Commission. The appellate court affirmed this decree, and the High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioners' civil revision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts warranted interference in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any illegality in the impugned judgment. Emphasizing that the reappraisal of evidence is generally impermissible at the stage of a petition for leave to appeal where concurrent findings of fact exist, the Court dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the lower courts' decisions.
- Is the reappraisal of evidence permissible in a petition for leave to appeal where there are concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of any demonstrated illegality in the impugned judgment?
' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---This Petition for Leave to Appeal is directed against the Impugned Judgment dated 27.1.2012 of the learned Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Bench, whereby Civil Revision No, 91 of 2007 filed by Petitioners was dismissed.
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the /is at hand are that Respondent No, 1 filed a suit for permanent injunction and possession in respect of the property in dispute measuring 23 kanals and 10 marlas. The suit was resisted. On the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and the evidence, was led, where after the learned Trial Court seized of the matter decreed the suit vide Judgment and Decree dated 264.2004.. Aggrieved, the Petitioners filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide appellate Judgment and Decree dated 22.12.2006, where after the Petitioners invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the learned Peshawar High Court through Civil Revision No, 91 of 2007, which has been dismissed vide Impugned Judgment dated 27.1.2012.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has been heard and the available record perused.
4. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record, including the statement of the Patwari and the report of the Naib Tehsildar, which was appointed as Local Commission, returned the findings, that the Petitioners had encroached upon 23 Kanals and 10 marlas of land of respondent No, 1/plaintiff and decreed the suit The said finding has been affirmed in appeal. The revision filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed. There is a concurrent finding of fact, which has been affirmed by the learned High Court. The learned counsel is seeking reappraisal of evidence, which if not permissible at this stage. He is unable to point out any illegality in the Impugned Judgment, warranting interference by this Court.
5. Consequently, this Petition being without merit is dismissed and leave declined.
High Court Judgment Upheld/.