JAVAID and others vs THE AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD., CHINIOT
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by debtors-defendants against the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. The underlying dispute originated from a decree passed against the petitioners for the recovery of a disputed amount. The petitioners, having unsuccessfully challenged the decree before the lower courts on both facts and merits, sought intervention from the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact established by the lower courts. Upon examination, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court's refusal to disturb these concurrent findings was legally unexceptionable. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and refused to grant leave to appeal. The judgment reinforces the established principle that the Supreme Court will generally decline to interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts when the High Court has correctly exercised its discretion in upholding those findings, absent any legal error or misappreciation of evidence.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts in a regular second appeal?
- Is a High Court's refusal to disturb concurrent findings of fact by lower courts considered unexceptionable in the absence of legal error?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the debtors-defendants against the dismissal by the High Court of their Regular Second Appeal; which had arisen out of a decree for the recovery of the disputed amount, passed against the petitioners. They having failed before all the learned Courts below on facts and merits, have now sought leave to appeal.
2. The case now stands concluded by concurrent findings of fact by the learned Courts below. The refusal by the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, has on examination, been found to be unexceptionable.
3. ' After hearing the learned counsel, we find no merit in this petition and leave to appeal is refused.