GHULAM SADIQ vs Mst. AISHA and 16 others
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 5-11-1991 in Civil Revision No. 415 of 1988, which affirmed the decree passed in favour of the respondents. The respondents had filed a suit for declaration seeking a one-fourth share in the disputed land, which was decreed by the Civil Judge, Daggar and subsequently upheld on appeal by the District Judge, Swat. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by three courts below justified interference in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that there was no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and noted that no question of law was involved in the matter. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court in the absence of a substantial question of law or error.
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts when no question of law arises?
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 5-11-1991 passed in Civil Revision No, 415 of 1988.
2. Relevant facts are that the respondents' suit for a declaration that they were entitled to 1/4th share in the land in dispute was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Daggar on 30-6-1987 and the petitioners' appeal against the said decree was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Swat on 3- 5-1988. Petitioners filed the abovenoted Civil Revision in the Peshawar High Court which was dismissed on 5-11-1991. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel contested the findings of facts by the three Courts A below. There is no justification to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact. There is no law point involved. The petition is dismissed.