SHER JANG KHAN and another vs FATEH KHAN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendants against a judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed their civil revision in a suit for permanent injunction regarding a right of way. The respondent's suit had been decreed by the trial court, and this decision was upheld on appeal. The High Court dismissed the subsequent civil revision, finding that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were sound and that there was no evidence of misreading or non-reading of the record. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought to re-argue the same factual and merit-based points that had already been adjudicated upon by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that since the findings of fact were concurrent and had been properly examined by the High Court, there was no justification for interference. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact, absent any misreading or non-reading of evidence, are generally not liable to be set aside in revision or further appeal.
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be set aside in civil revision absent misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when it merely reiterates factual arguments already concluded by concurrent findings of lower courts?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants side in a suit for permanent injunction relating to right of way (path), against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court.
2. The suit of the respondent was decreed on the basis of findings of fact against the petitioners. Their appeal was dismissed on merits. Their revision was also dismissed by the High Court on examination of the merits as also on the ground that the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below were not liable to be set aside in revision and further that there was no misreading or non- reading of the evidence.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated all those points of facts and merits which stand concluded by concurrent findings of fact by the learned Courts below. It is not a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is refused.