GHULAM FATIMAH vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of her civil revision by the High Court, which upheld concurrent judgments and decrees for possession of the suit house passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The core legal question concerns the identification and boundaries of the properties in dispute, as well as the propriety of the lower appellate court's refusal to permit additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not be granted the concession of additional evidence at the appellate stage, finding no merit in the contention. Consequently, the Court ruled that the concurrent findings regarding the identity of the property were justified, and the petition for leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts are not bound to grant additional evidence unless statutory thresholds are met, and findings of fact regarding property boundaries based on evidence will not be lightly disturbed.
- Whether additional evidence can be allowed at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the identification and boundaries of a suit property be interfered with when the lower courts properly evaluated the evidence?
- Order XLI Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant against the dismissal by the High Court of her Civil Revision. It had arisen out of a decree for possession of the suit house in favour of the plaintiff-respondent passed by the trial Court, which was upheld in appeal. The appellate Court had before dismissing the appeal rejected also the petitioner's application for additional evidence.
2. The controversy between the parties and the dispute brought before the Court in its essential aspects related to the boundaries of two properties and identification of the suit house. On the evidence led before the Court, the respondent's claim was found justified and accordingly the suit had been decreed. Learned counsel frankly stated that if the plea for additional evidence would have been allowed by the appellate Court, the petitioner might have succeeded.
3. We having heard the learned counsel on the question of additional evidence, have not been able to agree with him that the petitioner could have been allowed the concession of additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C. Otherwise too, after hearing him, we do not find any merit in this petition. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.