MUHAMMAD SALEEM and others vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, which dismissed the civil revision of the petitioners. The original suit was filed by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest for the specific performance of an agreement to sell a disputed house, which was subsequently sold to another party after the original vendor's death. The trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court all dismissed the suit through concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and finding no misreading or non-reading of the evidence, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the core question of whether concurrent findings of fact could be interfered with in the absence of a substantial question of law. The Court held that since concurrent findings of fact were properly reached and no point of law was raised or substantiated, the petition lacked merit. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading, non-reading of evidence, or a valid question of law.
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be maintained when no point of law is raised?
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, dated 12 March, 1983 whereby the civil revision of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that Ghulam Haider predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents for specific performance of an agreement to sell the disputed house for Rs,15,000 made by Jahangir Khan predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 3 in favour of said Ghulam Haider. The suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement. Jahangir Khan died on 26 January 1963 and after his death respondents Nos.1 to 3 had refused to perform the contract, and instead sold the house to respondent No,4. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 3 February, 1981. Thereafter, the appeal of the petitioners was likewise unsuccessful and so was the fate of their civil revision.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. So far as the merits of the case are concerned there are concurrent findings of fact decided against the petitioners by all the Courts below.
4. Learned counsel could not succeed in pointing out any misreading or non-reading of the evidence.
5. Since the questions of fact have been decided against the petitioners and no point of law had been raised in the instant case we do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
6. ' Leave to .