MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's civil revision and upheld the decision of the District Judge. The petitioner challenged the lower courts' findings, arguing that they relied upon inadmissible evidence in violation of Section 50 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court examined the record, specifically the statement of one of the plaintiffs, to determine whether the lower courts had contravened the statutory requirements regarding the admissibility of evidence. Upon review, the Court found that the evidence relied upon was not inadmissible and that the lower courts had correctly complied with the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act. Concluding that the impugned judgment contained no error of law and involved no question of public importance requiring further examination, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal. The decision affirms the finality of the lower courts' concurrent findings on evidence.
- Does the reliance on evidence by lower courts constitute an error of law if it complies with Section 50 of the Evidence Act?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when there is no error of law or question of public importance?
- Section 50, Evidence Act 1872
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Muhammad Nawaz son of Muhammad Noor, resident of Chak Khushi, Tehsil Pind Dadan Khan District Chakwal, seeks leave to appeal against the order of Lahore High Court dated 19-11-1987, whereby the Civil Revision filed by him was dismissed and the order of the District Judge was confirmed.
2. ' The sole contention raised before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Courts below accepted the evidence of the respondents/plaintiffs which was inadmissible and contrary to section 50 of the Evidence Act and decreed the suit. Hence, the impugned order of the Lahore High Court needs to be set aside.
3. This contention has no force. We have examined the statement of one of the plaintiffs in the light of the aforesaid provision of the Evidence Act. We don't find that any inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or the said provision of the Evidence Act has not been complied with.
4. ' There is neither any error of law nor any question of public importance which needs to be examined by this Court. Leave is accordingly refused.