REHM DIN vs RIZWAN HUSSAIN
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a finding by the High Court that the District Judge and the trial Court misread the receipt Exh.A-1 regarding the date of deposit of zar-i-punjam, determining it to be 13-7-1967 instead of 12-7-1967. The core legal question concerns whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the misreading of evidence by the lower courts suffered from any legal infirmity justifying interference. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any infirmity in the High Court's finding, and accordingly dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a material misreading or infirmity is successfully established.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the misreading of evidence?
- Does a finding on the date of deposit based on a receipt constitute a question of fact open to interference if properly evaluated?
- Is a petition for special leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner fails to show any infirmity in the impugned High Court judgment?
ORDER
1. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--In this petition for special leave to appeal the High Court has found that the District Judge and the trial Court misread the receipt Exh.A-1 in coming to the conclusion that the zar-i-punjam was deposited on 13-7-1967 and not on 12-7-1967. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to show that this finding suffers from any infirmity. In the circumstances we do not think this is a fit case for interference by this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.