Malik KATOO And 3 Others vs ALLAH BAKHSH And 2 Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal in limine regarding a pre-emption suit. The core legal question is whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts can be disturbed in a second appeal where such findings are based on evidence. The Supreme Court held that a concurrent finding of fact based on evidence, regardless of how meagre that evidence may be, cannot be disturbed in a second appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a defect such as the misreading of evidence or omission to consider material evidence is demonstrated.
- Can a concurrent finding of fact be disturbed in a Second Appeal if it is based on evidence?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of misreading or omission of evidence?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 7-10-1978, dismissing their R.S.A. In limine in a pre-emption matter.
2. The petitioners brought in a suit against the respondents in, respect of the land measuring 91 Kanals and 7 Marlas in Mauza Kot Tahir, Tehsil Jampur, District Dera Ghazi Khan. The respondents resisted the suit on the ground that the transaction was not a sale but exchange between the vendor and themselves. The parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that it was an exchange. The petitioners then filed an appeal which was dismissed and the finding of fact of the trial Court was upheld. The petitioners then filed an R.S.A. Which also failed.
The High Court dismissed it with the observation that a concurrent finding of fact could not be disturbed in a Second Appeal, if the same is based on evidence, however, meagre. For this view it relied on Madan Gopal v. Maran Bepari PLD 1969 SC 617.
3. We have heard the petitioner's counsel at some length. He has not been able to point out any defect in the impugned judgment by way of misreading of evidence or omission to consider any portion thereof. He has also not been able to show why this Court should interfere with a concurrent finding of fact by the learned Courts below. Leave is, therefore, refused.