MUHAMMAD HANIF And Others vs Subedar SARDAR KHAN And Other
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which allowed four civil revision petitions and decreed the respondent's suit for declaration and possession based on a concession made during the hearing. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court correctly recorded the concession of the parties regarding the sale of the disputed land and the restoration of the trial court's decree. The Supreme Court held that statements of fact recorded by a judge in a judicial order or judgment must be accepted as correct unless shown otherwise, and finding no reason to doubt the High Court's record, the petition lacked justification. The key principle laid down is that appellate and revisional courts' statements regarding concessions and facts occurring during proceedings are accorded absolute sanctity, and leave to appeal will be refused when such factual assertions remain unrefuted by cogent material.
- Whether statements of fact recorded in a judicial judgment regarding a concession made by parties can be treated as incorrect without strong justification?
- Does a concession made by parties or their authorized representatives during revision proceedings bind the parties?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment based on a recorded concession when no factual error is established?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 13-1-1985 of the Peshawar High Court; whereby four civil revision petitions filed from the respondent-side, were allowed.
2. Sardar Khan respondent had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that land in dispute was owned by him on account of purchase and that he was in its possession. He had also claimed consequential reliefs. It was decreed by the trial Court but the petitioners' (defendants') appeal was allowed. On further revision filed in the High Court the suit had been decreed on the concession made at the time of the hearing thereof.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no such concession was made by the petitioners, who were respondents in the revisional proceedings before the High Court.
4. The relevant part of the impugned judgment is reproduced below: "From the side of the respondents (petitioners herein) in all the cases Mohammad Zarif, Jan Mohammad and Mohammad Rafiq respondents are present in person. Out of whom Mohammad Rafiq claims himself to be attorney for the rest of the respondents.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance in presence of the parties, wherefrom the factum of sale was proved to the hilt as stated above and conceded by the parties. The parties and their counsel are, therefore, agreed that the judgment of the lower appellate CCourt is to be set aside and that o the trial Court is to be restored.
6. Order accordingly."
7. There is no reason for us to treat the statement of fact recorded in the above-quoted part of the impugned judgment, as incorrect.
8. That being so, no justification has been made out for interference by this Court. Leave to appeal accordingly, is refused.