ABDUL GHANI vs MANZOOR AHMAD BUTT
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendant against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had maintained the decree for possession of a disputed shop in favor of the respondent. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in its revisional jurisdiction by ignoring alleged misreading and non-reading of evidence regarding the nature of the suit property as a plot versus a built-up shop. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact on the matter, duly examined by the High Court with valid reasoning, did not warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower forums. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact affirmed by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction without any established error of non-reading or mis-reading of evidence will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact affirmed by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction?
- Does a revisional court require strong grounds of non-reading or mis-reading of evidence to interfere with factual determinations?
- Can a plea regarding the nature of the suit property as a plot or built-up shop be entertained when concurrently resolved against the petitioner?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant; against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Civil Revision. It had arisen out of respondent's suit for possession of the disputed shop, which has been decreed.
2. ' The petitioner has lost throughout on questions of fact. The High Court while dismissing the revision did not find any non-reading or mis-reading of evidence. However, learned counsel contended that while the documents relied upon by the respondent/plaintiff showed the property in dispute as a plot belonging to him, in reality the suit property is a built up shop. He further stated that the, documents relied upon by the petitioner showed that it was a built up shop.
3. ' The point raised by the learned counsel having been noticed the respondent was held to be the owner of the land underneath the shop and the petitioner had been permitted to remove the superstructure.
4. After hearing the learned counsel we do not find any force in this contention. The plea of misreading and non-reading of evidence having been duly noticed by the High Court, for good reasons, it did not find favour in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 1 case
- PANDOK Versus KHODA IQBAL 2007 PLD 44