LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MUHAMMAD QASIM
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The respondent had filed a suit for declaration challenging the forfeiture of earnest money and a demand notice issued by the petitioners following an auction of a plot, in which the respondent was the highest bidder. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appellate court dismissed the petitioners' appeal. The core legal question concerned whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings did not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, or misreading of evidence, and that the revision petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts, unless vitiated by misreading of evidence or violation of law, will not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by subordinate courts can be interfered with in civil revision when no misreading of evidence is pointed out?
- Can a party challenge the forfeiture of earnest money and demand notice issued after an auction through a suit for declaration?
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against judgment/order, dated 26-3-2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Civil Revision No,611 of 2001 filed by petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Short facts leading to the filing of instant petition are that respondent filed a suit for declaration with the averments that he participated in the auction of plot held by petitioners and being the highest bidder he deposited Rs,1,94,300 as earnest money. The petitioners after confiscating the earnest money and also issued Demand Notice No, 6, dated 3-3-1991 directing the respondent to deposit the balance amount of plot in question. The respondent prayed that demand of the petitioners may be declared as illegal, void, having no legal effect. It was further prayed that letter, dated 19-3-1991 for forfeiture of amount of Rs,1,94,300 may also be declared as illegal and void directing the petitioners to refund the said amount. The suit was resisted by the petitioners both on legal as well as factual grounds.
3. Learned trial Court after observing codal formalities decreed the suit vide judgment/decree- dated 20-11-1994. Being dissatisfied from the decree of trial Court petitioners preferred appeal, which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Lahore by means of judgment/decree, dated 4- 11-2000. The petitioners assailed both the judgments/decrees of the Courts below before Lahore High Court, Lahore by filing Civil Revision No,611 of 2001, which has been dismissed by means of impugned judgment, dated 26-3-2002. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel contended that learned High Court failed to consider the terms and conditions of the contract published in the newspaper, therefore, the view taken in maintaining the judgment of the Courts below is not correct, thus, warrants interference by this Court.
5. It may be noted that learned trial and Appellate Courts after taking into consideration material available on record granted relief to the respondent. Learned High Court has also examined the case in depth and formed opinion that as the findings of fact recorded by the trial and Appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality and irregularity because the learned counsel of the petitioners failed to point out any piece of evidence which was misread by the subordinate Courts or any principle of law has been violated, therefore, revision petition is not competent. We are inclined to concur with such observations of learned High Court following the principle laid down in the judgments Haji Rana Muhammad Shabbir Ahmad Khan v. Government of Punjab Province, Lahore (PLD 1994 SC 1) and Mussarat Sultana v. Muhammad Saeed (1997 SCM R 1866).
' Thus for the foregoing reasons we see no merit in the instant petition which is dismissed and leave declined.