ALIM DIN vs NIAZ MUHAMMAD alias DAULA and 4 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had affirmed the lower appellate court's judgment. The suit was originally instituted for the possession of a small plot of land measuring 5 Marlas in Khasra No. 7492, claimed to have been allotted to the petitioner under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was validly allotted the specific plot claimed by him or a different piece of land, and whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower forums warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that no justification existed for setting aside the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below, as the case did not present any violation of law or principle justifying a re-appraisal of evidence. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence will not be disturbed in leave to appeal proceedings unless a clear violation of law or principle is demonstrated. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a civil matter during leave to appeal proceedings?
- Is a re-appraisal of evidence permissible when no law or principle has been violated by the impugned judgments?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff, against the dismissal by the High of his Civil Revision. It had arisen out of his suit for possession of a small plot of land claimed to have been allotted to him under the Settlement Scheme No,VII.
2. ' The dispute between the parties was whether the petitioner was allotted the particular plot (Ahata) claimed by him; namely, 5 Marlas in Khasra No,7492 or it was a different piece of land.
3. Petitioner's suit was initially decreed but the respondents' appeal was allowed and it was held that he was entitled to a plot of about 3 Marlas out of Khasra No,7432. On petitioner's revision the High Court also examined the merits of the pleas raised from either side and affirmed the appellate judgment, hence, the petitioner has sought leave to appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel on the factual controversy and at his insistence have also examined the record. After hearing him we have not been able to find out any justification for setting aside the concurrent findings of fact by the two higher Courts. It is not a fit case for re- appraisal of the evidence regarding which no law or principle has been violated in the impugned judgments. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.