MUHAMMAD SULEMAN And Others vs AHMA And Another
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which dismissed their civil revisions arising out of concurrent findings by the lower courts. The litigation involved two cross-suits: one filed by the petitioners for the recovery of money and the other by the respondents for the possession of agricultural land. The trial court dismissed the petitioners' suit and decreed the respondents' suit, a decision subsequently upheld by the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The core legal question concerned whether any interference was warranted in concurrent factual findings of the lower courts where the petitioners' own witness damaged their case. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent judgments were unexceptionable as the petitioners' case was destroyed by their own witness, and no question of law of general importance was raised. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence will not be interfered with in the absence of a substantial question of law.
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when a party's own witness destroys their case?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal lie against concurrent judgments that raise no question of law of general importance?
ORDER
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 17-3-1987, whereby their Civil Revisions bearing Nos. 146-D and 147-D of 1983, were dismissed.
2. Two suits, one by the petitioners for the recovery of Rs.2,800 against the respondents and the other by the respondents against the petitioners for possession of agricultural land, were filed in the Court of Civil Judge, 1st Class, Chishtian. After the contest, the learned Civil Judge, vide his judgment 30-6-1976, dismissed the suit of the petitioners and decreed that of the respondents. The learned Additional District Judge, vide his judgment, dated 9-4-1983, dismissed the appeals of the petitioners and their revisions too were dismissed through the impugned judgment.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. All the Courts have concurrently non-suited the petitioners and rightly so because it was the petitioners' witness who destroyed their case.
4. Since no question of law of general importance has been raised in these petitions, the same are dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.