NAZIR AHMED through L.Rs, vs UMRA and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts declaring the transactions of redemption and sale to be collusive and executed without the plaintiff's consent. The core legal question concerns the scope and limits of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any proven misreading or non-reading of material evidence, concurrent findings of fact by courts below cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that where lower courts concurrently resolve factual controversies and the petitioner fails to point out any specific misreading or non-reading of evidence, the High Court will not disturb such findings under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without establishing misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Does the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court extend to re-evaluating factual controversies concurrently resolved by two lower courts?
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Leave to appeal is claimed against the judgment, dated 9-5-2001 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the petitioners'
Civil Revision No,1731 of 1995 was dismissed and the result was that the concurrent findings of both the Courts below the High Court that the transactions of redemption and sale were collusive, without consent of the plaintiff, are based on proper appreciation of evidence and warrant no interference.
2. There is no need for entering into any detailed examination of other facts of the cause here. We suffice by observing that the findings of the learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, are that in the absence of any misreading or non-reading of material evidence on record, the jurisdiction of the High Court under clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of section 115, C.P.C. Is not attracted. When the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was drawn to the assertion in the memo. Of this petition that the evidence was either misread or not read at all and he was asked to point out any such situation, he was not in a position to pinpoint or even so much as refer to any such situation with particularity. It is trite law that if the judgments impugned/challenged by a litigant before a High Court under section 115, C.P.C. Concurrently resolve a controversy of facts one way or the other, the same cannot be interfered with by the High Court. This is exactly what has been done by the learned Judge in Chambers while passing the impugned judgment dated 9-5-2001.
3. No other point was urged.
4. There is no force in this petition which is dismissed and leave refused.
Cited by 6 cases
- Muhammad Ashraf Chheena through L.Rs. and others vs Mst. Rehana Bibi 2022 YLR 704
- DEEDAR GUL and 2 others vs WAZIR GULAM 2020 MLD 238
- FAWAD KHAN Versus Sh. ASIF LATIF SATHI 2019 YLR 1158
- HAKEEM KHAN And 6 Others vs ANWAR MUHAMMAD KHAN And 28 Other 2014 CLC 1252
- HIDAYAT SHAH vs AMEER KHAN and 2 others 2015 YLR 2298
- HAMID SHAH vs HAKIM KHAN And Others 2003 YLR 93