AHMAD SHER vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 2 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a plaintiff against the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. The petitioner claimed ownership of an evacuee property measuring 2 Kanals 7 Marlas, alleging the respondents occupied it as licensees and refused to vacate, prompting a suit. The respondents also filed a separate suit claiming rights and possession over a portion of the land. The lower forums and the High Court rendered concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner. The core legal question examined was whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts suffered from misreading or non-consideration of evidence to warrant interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence without any misreading or omission, and thus refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a clear case of misreading or ignoring important evidence is established.
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of misreading of evidence?
- Can a licensee's refusal to vacate evacuee property give rise to a valid claim for possession?
- Does the misreading of evidence justify granting leave to appeal against concurrent judgments?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff, against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Regular Second Appeal.
2. ' The petitioner claiming to be the owner of an evacuee property measuring 2 Kanals 7 Marlas asserted that the respondents had occupied the same as his licensees. It was further asserted that the respondents had refused to vacate the suit property, therefore, the petitioner was compelled to file a suit. On the other hand a suit was also filed from the respondents' side claiming right to and possession of 1 Kanal 6 Marlas of land. It was instituted against the petitioner with a view to establish their right on the same. The petitioner having lost up to the High Court has now sought leave to appeal.
3. The arguments raised by the learned counsel related to findings of fact which have been rendered against the petitioner. The contention that they are based on misreading of evidence is without any force as there is neither any misreading nor any important piece of evidence has been ignored. Accordingly, finding no justification for interference, leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others Versus ARSHAD IQBAL 2007 SCMR 1179