Jamadar JALAL DIN and another vs MUHAMMAD YOUSUF and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reversed the concurrent findings of the trial court and the District Judge, Mianwali. The High Court, in setting aside the lower courts' decisions, relied upon the legal precedent established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Rehmat Bibi v. Nathe Khan and others (PLD 1969 SC 197). Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the arguments presented by the petitioners regarding the propriety of the High Court's interference with the lower courts' findings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was legally justified in its intervention and that the reliance placed on the precedent of Mst. Rehmat Bibi was correct. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's judgment, affirming the reversal of the lower courts' decrees. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Is the High Court justified in reversing concurrent findings of lower courts based on established Supreme Court precedent?
- Does the reliance on the case of Mst. Rehmat Bibi v. Nathe Khan and others provide a valid legal basis for setting aside lower court judgments in this context?
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- This petition is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby he accepted the second appeal filed by the respondents herein and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, which was affirmed, on appeal, by the learned District Judge, Mianwali.
2. ' In reversing the judgments passed by the two Courts below, the learned Judge in the High Court relied upon this Court's judgment in the case of Mst. Rehmat Bibi v. Nathe Khan and others PLD 1969 SC 197.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length we find that the learned Judge in the High Court was justified in interfering with the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and that this Court's judgment in the case of Mst. Rehmat Bibi was rightly relied upon.
4. ' No ground for interference, therefore, is made out.
5. ' This petition, accordingly, must fail and is dismissed hereby.