Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD SHAFI Versus ABDUL HAMID And Other
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's civil revision regarding a dispute over the co-ownership of a staircase. The respondents had filed a suit for declaration asserting that the staircase located between the parties' shops was jointly owned, providing access to their respective upper portions, and that the petitioner had no right to obstruct its use. Both the trial court and the appellate court concurrently held that the staircase was commonly owned, a finding of fact supported by the personal site inspection conducted by the Additional District Judge, who observed a door connecting the staircase to the respondents' roof. The Supreme Court addressed the petitioner's contention regarding the alleged misreading of evidence. The Court held that the concurrent findings of fact, grounded in the personal inspection of the site by the Additional District Judge, were well-founded and did not warrant interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that findings of fact based on judicial site inspection are not lightly disturbed in revisional or appellate proceedings.
- Can concurrent findings of fact based on a personal site inspection by a judge be challenged on the ground of misreading of evidence?
- Is a finding of fact based on a judicial site inspection sufficient to sustain a decree in a suit for declaration?
ORDER
JAVID IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order dated 9th February 1986 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the respondents filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the staircase situated between their and the petitioner's shop was co-owned by both the parties for having access to their respective upper portions and that the petitioner had no right to prevent them from its user. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court concurrently held that the staircase was commonly owned by both the parties and this finding of fact was based on personal inspection of the Additional District Judge who had noted that there was a door connecting the staircase with the roof of the respondents' shop. It was on the bass of this concurrent finding of fact that learned Judge of the High Court had dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner. Hence the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner before us attempted to argue that there had been misreading of evidence in the instant case but this argument is without any substance because the findings of fact recorded against the petitioner by all the Courts throughout had been based on personal inspection of the site by the Additional District Judge. The petition therefore has no substance and is accordingly dismissed. 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.
Judges on this bench
- Muhammad Afzal Zullah3,959 judgments
- Javid Iqbal1,088 judgments