2003 PLP 1050 (CLC)
GUL MUHAMMAD TABASSAM — Petitioner Versus Mst. GULSHAN ARA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1050 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GUL MUHAMMAD TABASSAM — Petitioner Versus Mst. GULSHAN ARA and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1050 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1050 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1050 (CLC) (GUL MUHAMMAD TABASSAM — Petitioner Versus Mst. GULSHAN ARA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Anwarul Haq Bari for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Sadiq Chughtai for Respondent No. 1.
- 6. The petition is contested by learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Arguments heard; petition and its annexures perused.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Scope
Concurrent findings of Courts below could not be successfully assailed in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, unless Courts had exceeded jurisdiction, acted without jurisdiction or findings were based on no evidence-- Constitutional petition would not lie to challenge an order on the ground that evidence in the case was not correctly appreciated because findings of facts recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction could not be 'disturbed simply on ground that another view could be possible on the same evidence
High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction could not sit as a Court of appeal and could not substitute findings of fact recorded by Courts below-as such matter should be decided by Courts invested with jurisdiction to decide.
Judgment & Decree
3. The suit was contested by the petitioner. After framing necessary issues and recording evidence, the learned Family Court (respondent No.3) decreed the suit vide judgment dated 31-5-2000 (Annexure F). Petitioner's appeal against that decree was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, (respondent No.2) vide judgment dated 31-1-2002 (Annexure G).
4. In thins Constitutional petition both the aforesaid judgments and decrees called in question.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had argued' that both the aforesaid judgments are against law and facts for the following reasons: (i) From the .evidence produced by respondent No. 1, her claim for recovery of dower was not established; and (ii) evidence was not correctly appraised and the impugned judgments suffer.from non-reading and misreading of evidence.
6. The petition is contested by learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Arguments heard; petition and its annexures perused.
7. Concurrent findings by the Family Court and the Appellate Court cannot be successfully assailed in writ jurisdiction, unless the Courts had exceeded jurisdiction, acted without, jurisdiction or findings were based on no evidence. Constitutional petition also does not lie to challenge an order on the ground that evidence in the case was not correctly appreciateo because findings of facts recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction cannot be disturbed pimply on the ground that another view could be possible on the same evidence.
8. High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot sit as a Court of appeal and cannot substitute findings of facts recorded by the Courts below as such matter should be decided by the Courts invested with jurisdiction to decide them.
9. A perusal of the impugned judgments reveal that plausible reasons have been given therein in support of the conclusions arrived at.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner had failed to draw my attention to any portion of evidence, which was allegedly overlooked or was misread by any of the Courts below.
11. Neither there appears to be any misreading of evidence nor any material piece of evidence appears to have been overlooked by the Courts below. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is without any merit, it is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./G-208/L Petition dismissed.