Ch. MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a debtor against a money decree and the consequential dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether there was sufficient evidence regarding the passing of consideration for the execution of a promissory note and whether the lower courts misread the said instrument. The Supreme Court held that no legal infirmity or misreading existed in the concurrent findings of the courts below to warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming that concurrent factual findings supported by a promissory note executed by the debtor do not invite interference where no jurisdictional error is demonstrated.
- Whether revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be exercised against concurrent findings regarding a promissory note?
- Does the execution of a promissory note shift the burden regarding the passing of consideration in a money suit?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts where no legal infirmity or misreading of evidence is established?
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a debtor/defendant against a money decree and the consequential dismissal of his civil revision in that behalf.
2. Learned counsel has contended that in the background of the case, regarding which he gave the detailed facts, the execution of the promissory note relied upon by the respondent's side is not denied. But there was not enough evidence to show that the money consideration had passed between the parties. He has also tried to show that the promissory note in question has been misread.
3. ' After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we have not been able to find any such infirmity in the findings and the decisions of the learned two Courts below so as to attract the corrective civil revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115, C.P.C. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise.
4. ' Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.