ILAM DIN And Another vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM And Other
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioners, Ilam Din and Mst. Meraj Begum, challenging a judgment of the High Court dated 11-6-1978, which dismissed their Regular Second Appeal (R.S.A. No. 310 of 1978) in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its determination regarding the petitioners' alleged superior right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had dismissed the appeal on the basis that the matter was concluded by a finding of fact. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioners' counsel failed to demonstrate that the High Court had misread or ignored any material evidence on the record concerning the issue in question. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The key principle affirmed is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless it is shown that the lower court misread or ignored material evidence.
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a finding of fact in a pre-emption case if the High Court has not misread or ignored material evidence?
- Is a finding of fact by the High Court in a Regular Second Appeal conclusive if no misreading of evidence is demonstrated?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Ilam Din and Mst. Meraj Begum seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 11-6-1978, dismissing their R.S.A. (No.310 of 1978) in a pre- emption case.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have superior right of pre- emption as compared to the respondents and that the learned Courts below have erred in giving finding to the contrary. We, however, notice that the learned High Court had dismissed petitioners'
R.S.A. On the ground that the matter stood concluded by the finding of fact. The petitioners' counsel has not been able to show that the learned High Court has either misread or ignored any material portion of the evidence on the record with respect to the issue in question. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.