JANNA T BIBI and others vs WALI MUHAMMAD
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiffs against a judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed their civil revision regarding an inheritance dispute. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts, specifically the first appellate court and the High Court, had committed a material error by misreading evidence concerning the existence of a son of the deceased, Abdul Aziz. The petitioners contended that the deceased left behind a son, while the respondent claimed otherwise. Upon reviewing the record, the Supreme Court found that Exhibit P.1 appeared to support the petitioners' claim and that the first appellate court had prima facie misread this evidence. Furthermore, the High Court failed to adequately address or appreciate this misreading, despite noting the point in its judgment. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these findings, ordered the continuation of the stay, and directed the parties to file necessary additional documents for the appeal process.
- Does the misreading of a material document like an exhibit by the first appellate court warrant the granting of leave to appeal?
- Is the High Court required to correct a misreading of evidence by a lower appellate court in a civil revision?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the lower courts have failed to properly appreciate evidence regarding a disputed fact of inheritance?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs side in a suit for declaration against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court.
2. The dispute relates to the inheritance of Abdul Aziz, husband of petitioner No, 1 and father of petitioner No,
2. While the petitioners' case was that Abdul Aziz had also a son, the case of the respondent collateral was that Abdul Aziz did not leave behind any son. The petitioners have failed on this question before the 1st appellate Court and the High Court.
' Learned counsel has inter alia contended that some evidence has been misread and the remaining also needs to be re-examined.
3. The perusal of the record shows that Ex.P.1 did support the petitioners' case. Prima facie, it was misread by the 1st. Appellate Court and the High Court did not appreciate the misreading though the point is noted in the impugned judgment. The points raised in this petition need examination.
Leave to appeal is granted security Rs, 2,500. Stay to continue meanwhile. The appeal shall be prepared on the same record with direction to the parties, to file all additionnal necessary documents.