Haji GHULAM HUSSAIN vs PROVINCE OF PUNJABAND Other
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's regular second appeal arising from a suit for damages. The core legal question involved the determination of findings of fact regarding alleged damage to the petitioner's house caused by an abandoned well, known as a bouli. The Supreme Court held that there was no justification to re-open the case on a concurrent finding of fact where the petitioner failed to satisfy the normal standard for obtaining such a finding, and accordingly dismissed the petition. However, taking note of the potential for future damage, the Court recorded the respondents' undertaking that the concerned authority would take necessary measures to ensure the bouli does not cause damage or nuisance to the petitioner and local residents. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact concurrently reached by lower courts will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court absent sufficient justification, while public authorities remain responsible for maintaining public property to prevent nuisance or damage.
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a suit for damages?
- What is the responsibility of the concerned authority regarding an abandoned well causing potential damage to residents?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 8-6-1982 of the Lahore High Court ; whereby the petitioner's regular second appeal, arising out of a suit for damages, was dismissed.
2. After hearing the learned counsel in support of the petition, we find that the relief was refused to the petitioner on the ground that he had failed to satisfy the normal standard for obtaining a finding of fact, with regard to an alleged damage to his house, on account of an abandoned well called bouli, which it seems was constructed during Muslim Rule over India. As the effort is to re- open the case on question of finding of fact for which was find no justification, therefore, this petition merits dismissal. However, while hearing the arguments we have noticed that although the petitioner has failed to establish the specific damage allegedly caused by the concerned respondents, a possibility that he might suffer damage in future may not be excluded. Learned counsel for the respondents/caveators was unable to show that it was not the responsibility of the authority concerned to keep the bouli in such a condition as not to cause any damage or nuisance to the petitioner and other residents of the locality. That being the case, he undertook to inform the concerned authority to do the needful in this behalf. On this, the learned counsel for the petitioner, did not press the petition any further. The same accordingly is dismissed. 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.