ABDUL RASHID vs Mst. FAZAL BIBI and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 27-2-1983, which upheld findings of fact made by the Settlement Authorities regarding possession, construction of a shop, plot allotment, and rent payment. The core legal question involves whether concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities and the High Court regarding possession and construction warrant interference by the Supreme Court under appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the findings of fact were properly examined, supported by material on record, and that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing through written arguments. Consequently, the Court ruled that the impugned order suffered from no error of law and did not involve a question of public importance. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not grant leave to appeal to re-examine concurrent findings of fact that are duly supported by record and free from legal error.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding possession and construction determined by Settlement Authorities and the High Court?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal lie against findings of fact that involve no error of law or question of public importance?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Full dress arguments were heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged certain findings of fact; for instance as to who constructed the shop, factum of possession, allotment pertaining to the plot over which the shop was constructed and the payment of rent. All these questions have been properly and thoroughly examined by the Settlement Authorities as well as in the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 27-2-1983 against which the present petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Abdul Rashid.
2. Learned Judge of the High Court observed, "...Settlement Commissioner has given a finding of fact that the respondents' predecessors-in-interest were in possession and they built the shop. This finding is supported by the material on record".
3. ' Learned Judge further made sure as to whether the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing. He observed, "...Para. 6 of the impugned order,however, shows that both the parties relied upon their written arguments, already on the file. I have no reason to doubt the correctness of this averment".
4. ' For the foregoing reasons we don't think that the order impugned either suffers from any error of law or involves a question of public importance which needs to be examined. It is not a fit case for leave to appeal. The petition is accordingly 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.