Pakistan Case Law
1998 SCMR 2729

Messrs PAK-ARAB REFINERY LIMITED through General Manager vs ABDUL

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1998 SCMR 2729
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,144 of 1995 Appeal No,39 of 1983
Date1995-07-11
Judge(s)Muhammad Munir Khan and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging a judgment delivered by the High Court. The core legal question presented for the Supreme Court's consideration is whether the High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, was legally justified in reversing the concurrent findings of fact previously established by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. Furthermore, the Court sought to examine whether the High Court's judgment was vitiated by the misreading or non-reading of the evidence on record. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address these issues, thereby signaling a need to scrutinize the scope and limits of revisional interference with concurrent findings. Pending the final adjudication of the appeal, the Supreme Court ordered the continuation of an interim relief measure previously granted in Chambers, contingent upon the petitioner's compliance with a deposit requirement of Rs. 1,00,000, which the petitioner confirmed had been fulfilled. The case remains pending for final determination on the merits of the High Court's exercise of revisional power.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is the High Court justified in reversing concurrent findings of fact of the Trial Court and Appellate Court while exercising revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the High Court's judgment suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
revisional jurisdictionconcurrent findingsmisreading of evidenceleave to appealinterim reliefcivil procedure

ORDER

' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether the High Court, while exercising its revisional powers under section 115, C.P.C., was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, and also to examine as to whether or not the findings of the High Court suffer from misreading/non-reading of evidence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs,1,00,000 before 17-4-1995 in compliance with the order of this Court dated 5-4-1995 passed in Chambers.

The interim relief granted on 5-4-1995 shall continue till the disposal of the appeal.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.