AMIR SIAB Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil land dispute where the petitioners sought a declaration regarding title to the suit land situated in the erstwhile Swat State, but lost before the lower forums and the High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the two courts below in its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly declined to interfere, as there was no compelling reason to set aside concurrent findings of fact that did not suffer from any infirmity of law or principle, and the mere possibility of a different conclusion upon reappraisal of evidence is no ground for interference. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts upheld in revisional jurisdiction unless the appreciation of evidence suffers from a serious legal infirmity.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction without compelling reasons?
- Does the mere possibility of a different conclusion upon reappraisal of material constitute sufficient ground for interference by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ: ‑‑The petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of a land dispute. The petitioners/plaintiffs side having sought declaration regarding title to the suit land has lost throughout. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that both the side produced oral evidence that there was no Revenue Record in the erstwhile Swat State where the suit land is situated, therefore, the High Court did not properly appreciate the controversy about the title. He also argued that non‑production of documentary evidence on behalf of the petitioners side; for the rebuttal of the entries against them in the settlement record; was explainable as the same was under challenge in the suit of the petitioners side.
2. However, looked at from whatever angle the reality remains that the High Court has declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact and that too in its revisional jurisdiction. There was no compelling reason in the circumstances of this case to set aside the concurrent findings by two Courts below in the said jurisdiction of the High Court. The appreciation of evidence, it cannot be denied, does not suffer from any infirmity of law or principle. The insistence of learned counsel that the reappraisal of the material by this Court can lead to a different conclusion is by itself no ground for interference by this Court. However, on questioning the learned counsel on this aspect as well, we have not been able to differ with the High Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
3. AA./A‑1092/S Leave refused.