1994 PLP 1778 (SCMR)
AMIR SIAB and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P. through Home Secretary at Peshawar and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents'
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1778 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. And Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | AMIR SIAB and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P. through Home Secretary at Peshawar and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents' |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1778 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1778 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. And Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1778 (SCMR) (AMIR SIAB and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P. through Home Secretary at Peshawar and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents'). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Younus Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (Absent) for Petitioners.
- M. Azam Khan, Additional Advocate‑General, N: W.F.P. and MA. Qayyum Mazliar, Advocate‑on‑Record (Absent) for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
- Date of hearing: 7th December, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment .and Order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 2‑5‑92 passed in C.R. 68 of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.' 185(3)‑‑‑Concurrent findings of fact of Courts below‑‑‑High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction had declined to interfere with such findings‑‑‑High Court had no compelling reasons to set aside concurrent findings of fact of two Courts below in its revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence by Courts below did not suffer from any infirmity of law or principle‑‑‑Petitioner's contention that re appraisal of material by Supreme Court could lead to a different conclusion was by itself no ground for interference by Supreme Court‑‑‑Supreme Court, however, in such matter did not differ with the conclusion drawn by the High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ: ‑‑The petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of a land dispute. The petitioners/plaintiffs side having sought declaration regarding title to the suit land has lost throughout. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that both the side produced oral evidence that there was no Revenue Record in the erstwhile Swat State where the suit land is situated, therefore, the High Court did not properly appreciate the controversy about the title. He also argued that non‑production of documentary evidence on behalf of the petitioners side; for the rebuttal of the entries against them in the settlement record; was explainable as the same was under challenge in the suit of the petitioners side. However, looked at from whatever angle the reality remains that the High Court has declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact and that too in its revisional jurisdiction. There was no compelling reason in the circumstances of this case to set aside the concurrent findings by two Courts below in the said jurisdiction of the High Court. The appreciation of evidence, it cannot be denied, does not suffer from any infirmity of law or principle. The insistence of learned counsel that the reappraisal of the material by this Court can lead to a different conclusion is by itself no ground for interference by this Court. However, on questioning the learned counsel on this aspect as well, we have not been able to differ with the High Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. AA./A‑1092/S Leave refused.