MEHR DIL and 3 others vs FAQIR HUSSAIN and 11 others
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed a civil revision filed by the petitioners. The petitioners had previously filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership regarding a specific parcel of land measuring 8 Kanals 11 Marlas in Khasra No. 718. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellate court subsequently upheld that dismissal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of fact by the three lower courts were vitiated by any misreading or non-reading of evidence or any error of law that would warrant appellate interference. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioners' counsel failed to demonstrate any such misreading, non-reading, or legal error in the lower courts' findings. Consequently, the Court held that no grounds existed for interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The principle affirmed is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of demonstrated misreading, non-reading of evidence, or a clear error of law.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- What is the threshold for challenging concurrent findings of fact in a civil revision before the Supreme Court?
' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 31-3-1992 passed in Civil Revision No, 89 of 1985.
2. Relevant facts are that the petitioners filed a suit for a declaration that they were owners of land in dispute measuring 8 Kanals 11 Marlas in Khasra No, 718. After trial the suit was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge Swabi vide judgment dated 18-10-1983 and their appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Swabi on 13-1-1985. They filed a Civil Revision in the Peshawar High Court which was dismissed on 31-3-1992 as already mentioned.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contested the findings of facts by the three Courts below. He has, however, not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence or any error of law. In the circumstances no interference is called for. The Petition is dismissed.