Mirza GHULAM JILANI vs Mst. NAZ AKHTAR AND Other
This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from an order of the High Court at Lahore in a revision petition. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency of cause for the non-appearance of the plaintiff and his counsel leading to the dismissal of a civil suit for default, and whether concurrent factual findings by the lower courts regarding the lack of sufficient cause warrant interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were arrived at after proper consideration of the evidence and were not based on conjectures or surmises, and since no question of law arose for consideration, the petition was without substance. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding sufficient cause for non-appearance under procedural rules where such findings are supported by evidence and involve no substantial question of law.
- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the absence of sufficient cause for non-appearance can be interfered with when no question of law arises?
- Does the engagement of a counsel in the High Court constitute sufficient cause for non-appearance in a civil court at the appointed time without supporting evidence?
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court at Lahore in a revision petition.
2. This revision arose in the following circumstances :---- A suit filed by the present petitioner, which was pending it the Court of a Civil Judge of Lahore, was dismissed for default at 3 p.m. On the 10th of April 1963, as neither the learned counsel nor the plaintiff were present at the tune.
3. The learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, who happens to be an Advocate of the High Court and this Court also, moved an application for the restoration of the suit on the same day at 3-45 p.m. On the ground that he was busy in the High Court up to 3 p.m. The then learned Civil Judge allowed the application and restored the appeal without any clear finding as to whether there was any sufficient cause within the meaning of the law.
4. 'The defendant successfully moved the High Court in revision against the said order and the High Court remanded the case back with a directive to decide the application afresh after, recording evidence.
5. On such remand, a successor Civil Judge, after examining the plaintiff and his iearnc6 counsel, came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient cause for their non-appearance at the time arid dismissed the application for restoration. This finding has been upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Lahore and in revision by a learned Single Judge of the High Court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, who was also the counsel for the plaintiff' at the time of hearing of the suit, has contended that the findings of the Courts below were based purely on conjectures and surmises. But on a perusal of the record, we find no substance in this contention.
7. The findings had been arrived at after proper consideration of the evidence, and since the findings are concurrent, we see no sufficient ground for interference, particularly, as no question of law arises for consideration in this case.
8. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MIR HASSAN And ANOTHER vs THE STATE- 1987 P Cr. L J 1336