Pakistan Case Law
1974 SCMR 484

AZHAR SALEEM vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN ETC.S

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1974 SCMR 484
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 402 of 1973 S. A. O. No. 227 of
Date1973-11-15
Judge(s)Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Muhammad Gul
Authored byMuhammad Yaqub Ali
ResultPetitions dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a second appeal filed in the High Court against the judgment and order of the first appellate court regarding the ejectment of a tenant, where the landlords sought the premises for demolition and reconstruction. The core legal question is whether a second appeal is maintainable in the High Court against a concurrent finding of fact under the relevant statutory provisions. The Supreme Court held that no second appeal lay to the High Court in view of the concurrent findings of fact that the landlords honestly required the demised premises for demolition and reconstruction. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact arrived at by lower appellate courts cannot be reopened in a second appeal, and lack of maintainability under sections 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure bars such second appeals.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does a second appeal lie to the High Court against a finding of fact regarding the requirement of premises for demolition and reconstruction?
  • Are findings of fact by the first appellate court immune from challenge in a second appeal under sections 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
  • Section 101, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
second appealfinding of factdemolition and reconstructionejectmentlandlord and tenant

ORDER

MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The second appeal filed by the petitioner in the High Court from the judgment and order passed by the first appellate Court was concluded by finding of facts namely ; that the respondents-- landlords honestly required the demised premises for purposes of demolition and reconstruction. In view of this finding no second appeal lay to the High Court under sections 1C0 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure. See Wali Muhammad and others v. Muhammad Bakhsh and others (I L R 11 Lab. 199), Abdul Majid and others v. Khalil Ahmad (PLD 1955 FC 38).

2. Both the petitions for leave to appeal are accordingly dismissed.

Cited by 7 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.