GHULAM QADIR Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his regular second appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The core legal question involved was whether the transaction in dispute constituted a sale or an exchange. Three lower courts rendered concurrent findings of fact holding that the transaction was a sale, and the High Court dismissed the appeal as the counsel failed to point out any misconstrued or omitted material evidence. The Supreme Court held that it is not inclined to reopen a matter finally decided by concurrent findings of fact when no material evidence has been misconstrued or omitted. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact on second appeal unless material evidence has been ignored or misread.
- Whether a transaction constitutes a sale or an exchange in a pre-emption suit?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts?
- Can a regular second appeal be maintained without pointing out misconstrued or omitted material evidence?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 7‑12‑1985 dismissing his R.S.A. arising out of suit for pre‑emption.
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The main question involved in this case is whether the transaction was a sale or an exchange. Three Courts below have given a concurrent finding of fact that the transaction was a sale. The learned High Court dismissed the R.S.A. mainly on the ground that the counsel for the petitioner:‑
"..has not been able to point out any material evidence which might have been misconstrued or omitted from consideration. Therefore, there is no valid reason for this Court to interfere with the concurrent finding on a question which is essential one of fact.."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to controvert this observation and this Court is not inclined to reopen the matter which has been finally decided by the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned Courts below.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
M.I./G‑79/S Petition dismissed.