Chaudhry MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs AMAN KHAN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendant against the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court, which had affirmed a money decree passed by the trial court in a suit for the recovery of money for the supply of coal. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was liable for the price of coal supplied under the contract, despite his plea that a third party responsible for brick burning was liable for the payment. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the two courts below were supported by cogent reasons and documentary evidence, which clearly contradicted the petitioner's plea. Consequently, the Court found no justification for interference and refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact supported by documentary 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?
- Is a party contractually liable for supplies when documentary evidence contradicts their plea of third-party liability?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---The defendant in a suit for recovery of money for the supply of coal by the plaintiff/respondent, has challenged the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court against a money decree passed by the trial Court.
2. ' Learned counsel has argued that the coal was for a brick kiln. The petitioner was responsible only for the preparation and supply of bricks while their burning was to be done by a third party. Hence the price of coal under the contract was to be paid by the latter.
3. The High Court with cogent reasons affirmed the trial Court findings and held that the petitoner's plea was a concoction. We have noticed that on vital question as to who was to make the payment, documentary evidence is against him. There is no justification for interference with the findings of the two Courts below. Leave to appeal is refused.