Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 1090

QAMARUDDIN vs ABDUL GHAFOOR and 2 others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 1090
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,360 of 1984
Date1988-09-12
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan
Authored byMuhammad Afzal Zullah
ResultLeave to appeal refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the petitioner challenging a gift made by him in favor of the respondents. The trial court recorded a finding of fact against the petitioner, which led to the dismissal of his suit. This decision was subsequently upheld on appeal. The High Court, in a Regular Second Appeal converted into a Civil Revision, declined to disturb these concurrent findings of fact. Before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the petitioner's counsel contested the findings but ultimately could not sustain any argument against the concurrent appreciation of evidence by the courts below. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact that are unexceptionable and supported by evidence cannot be disturbed. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower courts.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts can be disturbed by the Supreme Court when they are found to be unexceptionable?
  • Can a petitioner succeed in seeking leave to appeal solely on the ground of reappreciation of evidence where concurrent findings of fact exist against him?
leave to appealsuit for declarationpermanent injunctiongiftconcurrent findings of factcivil revisionappreciation of evidence

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The plaintiff in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding a gift made by him in respondents' favour, has sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of his Regular Second Appeal (converted as a Civil Revision).

2. The learned trial Judge gave a finding of fact against the petitioner. His appeal was dismissed. The concurrent findings of fact by the learned two Courts below were not disturbed by the High Court.

3. In these circumstances, after arguing the matter for some time, the learned counsel could not pursue it any further on the question regarding appreciation of evidence and findings of fact against the petitioner which are unexceptionable. Leave to appeal is refused.

Cited by 1 case

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