SADIQ MUHAMMAD vs MADAD ALI and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the defendant side against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court, which arose from a decree passed in favor of the respondents/plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. The petitioner challenged the concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness and effectiveness of a disputed mutation (Issue No. 7) and argued that the mutation order should have been given some evidentiary effect. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the petitioner's counsel conceded that the disputed mutation had no binding effect on the respondents' rights. Upon reviewing the facts and appreciation of evidence, the Court found no legal or factual error in the concurrent findings rendered by the lower courts against the petitioner. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of fact.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of a mutation can be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of any legal error?
- Does a disputed mutation order have a binding effect on the rights of the plaintiffs when its genuineness is successfully challenged in a civil suit?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by defendant side in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil division.
2. It had arisen out of a decree passed in favour of the repondents/plaintiffs side which has been upheld throughout.
3. ' Learned counsel pointed out that issue No,7 which related to the merits of the dispute regarding genuineness and effectiveness of the questioned mutation, has wrongly been decided in favour of the respondents. He has also contended that the order of mutation decided in petitioner's favour should have been given some effect even if not binding.
4. ' We have heard the learned counsel on these points. He admitted that the disputed mutation would not have a binding effect on respondents/plaintiffs' right. Accordingly he rightly pointed out that the main controversy now left to be resolved is regarding the decision of issue No,7.
5. After hearing the learned counsel on facts and appreciation of evidence we have not been able to discover any error, legal or otherwise, in so far as the concurrent findings of fact rendered against the petitioner are concerned. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- PANDOK Versus KHODA IQBAL 2007 PLD 44
- MUHAMMAD SOOMAR vs Mst. SAMI 2000 YLR 1943
- DISTRICT COUNCIL, THARPARKAR through Chief Executive, Mirpurkhas vs Syed MUHAMMAD WALI and another 1998 CLC 911