MUHAMMAD SALEEM IQBAL And Another vs MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD And 2
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition in a rent matter. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court could be called upon to reappraise evidence and reverse concurrent findings of fact in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held, relying on settled precedent, that a petition seeking reappraisal of evidence and reversal of factual findings is incompetent in writ jurisdiction. The Court accordingly refused leave to appeal, affirming the dismissal of the writ petition. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact rendered by rent tribunals or lower courts cannot be reopened or reappraised through a constitutional petition under writ jurisdiction.
- Whether a writ petition is competent for the reappraisal of evidence and reversal of findings of fact in a rent matter?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent factual findings of lower courts and tribunals in rent disputes?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 10-3-1984, dismissing his writ petition in a rent matter.
2. We have heard the petitioners' counsel and gone through the impugned judgment.
It is evident from the observations in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment that before the High Court the petitioners' counsel had only urged that evidence in the case be reappraised and findings of fact on issues Nos. 5 and 6 be reversed. It is, therefore, obvious that in view of the observations by this Court in Abdur Rehman Bajwa's case PLD 1981 SC 522 the petition was incompetent. But even the learned High Court reconsidered the whole matter and dismissed the writ petition on merits.
In view of the above-mentioned circumstances we do not consider it a fit case for interference by this Court. Leave is consequently refused.