Sh. ABDUL QADEER vs Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR
This matter arises from a petition filed by a husband challenging the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court in a family dispute regarding the alleged misappropriation of dowry articles. The core legal question involves the sustainability of concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding disputed factual assertions and technical procedural objections raised by the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the case involved contradictory pleas on disputed questions of fact concluded concurrently against the petitioner by the lower courts, and that technical procedural objections without proof of prejudice do not warrant interference. The Court established the key principle that concurrent findings of fact on disputed matters will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court unless they suffer from an error of law or principle, and technicalities that cause no substantial prejudice cannot override substantial justice. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a family dispute regarding dowry?
- Can technical procedural objections without proof of prejudice form the basis for setting aside concurrent findings of fact?
- Does a defense of being 'Khana Damad' and shifting of dowry articles raise disputed questions of fact?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--A defendant in a family dispute regarding dowry has called in question the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court.
2. ' As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute about dowry was to the effect that while the respondent (wife) claimed that it had been misappropriated by the petitioner (husband), the latter's defence was that he having lived with the parents of the respondent as 'Khana Damad' her dowry was shifted to their house and thus he had neither any opportunity to misappropriate the same nor he had done so.
3. It was obviously a case of contradictory pleas on disputed question of fact which has been concluded by concurrent findings of fact by learned Courts below against the petitioner. Nothing has been shown so as to establish that the appraisal of the material before the learned lower Courts suffered from any error of law or principle. On the contrary the technical objections regarding procedural aspects of the case have been raised. They have not been given much importance by the High Court and rightly so; firstly, because they are not significant; and secondly, because no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and substantial justice nevertheless has been done. Accordingly finding no force in this petition, leave to appeal 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.