WARTS KHAN through Legal Heirs and others vs MSC, NIAZ BEGUM and others
The petitioners, legal heirs of Waris Khan and Muhammad Iqbal, sought leave to appeal against the judgment dated 25-10-1994 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which had set aside the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Civil Judge Ist Class, Talagang and the Additional District Judge, Chakwal, and decreed the respondents' suit. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the High Court interfering with concurrent findings of fact rendered by the two lower courts in a civil revision petition. The Supreme Court considered the contentions that the lower courts had exercised their jurisdiction lawfully and that the High Court was not justified in disturbing the concurrent findings. The Court held that the arguments raised by the petitioners required detailed consideration and accordingly granted leave to appeal, ordering that status quo be maintained until the disposal of the appeal. The key principle laid down is that where concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are challenged on the ground that jurisdiction was properly exercised without illegality, the matter warrants a full hearing by the apex court upon a petition for leave to appeal.
- Whether the High Court is justified in setting aside concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a civil revision petition?
- Does a petition raising substantial questions regarding the interference with concurrent factual findings warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
ORDER
' MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.---The petitioners' legal heirs of Waris Khan and Muhammad Iqbal seek leave for appeal against the judgment dated 25-10-1994 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, whereby the judgments of the Civil Judge Ist Class, Talagang and Additional District Judge, Chakwal,. Dated 15-4-1987 and 26-5-1990 respectively were set aside and the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed.
2. It was case of the respondents that Fazal Elahi husband of Mst. Niaz Begum, respondent No,1, and father of Karamat Hussain, Shaukat Hussain, Imtiaz Hussain, Mst. Tasleem Zohra and Mst. Asma Bibi, respondent Nos.2 to 6, in open auction purchased the plot in dispute. The property was rented out to Aitbar Khan and his son Iftikhar Khan. After death of Aitbar Khan the tenant left this plot and it remained vacant. The respondents, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, claim that Waris Khan and Muhammad Iqbal trespassed into the plot and started timber business there. They refused to pay rent also. The respondents filed suit for ejectment of Waris Khan and Muhammad Iqbal before the Court of the Civil Judge 1st Class, Talagang. They contested the suit. On pleadings of the parties seven issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge. The parties led evidence in support of their claims. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit on 15-4-1987. The respondents filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Chakwal. On 26-5-1990 the appeal of the respondents was dismissed. The respondents filed Civil Revision Petition before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi. On 25-10-1994 the High Court accepted the revision petition of the respondents, set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Civil Judge, Talagang and Additional District Judge, Chakwal and decreed the suit of the respondents. It may be observed that during pendency of the matters Waris Khan and Muhammad Iqbal have expired. Both of them are being represented by their legal heirs of the petitioners who have challenged the above said judgment of the High Court before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there were concurrent findings of the facts by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Talagang and Additional District Judge, Chakwal. The Courts below had exercised its jurisdiction vested on it by the law and had not acted illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction, hence, the judgment of the High Court is erroneous and the High Court was not justified in disturbing the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners require consideration of this Court. Leave to appeal is granted accordingly.
4. Status quo be maintained till the disposal of appeal.