P L D 2002 Supreme Court 607 (PLP)
IFTIKHAR through Legal Heirs and others — Petitioners Versus Capt. KHADIM HUSSAIN through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents .
| Citation | P L D 2002 Supreme Court 607 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Javed 1qbal, JJ |
| Parties | IFTIKHAR through Legal Heirs and others — Petitioners Versus Capt. KHADIM HUSSAIN through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents . |
| Primary Law | (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2002 Supreme Court 607 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2002 Supreme Court 607 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Javed 1qbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2002 Supreme Court 607 (PLP) (IFTIKHAR through Legal Heirs and others — Petitioners Versus Capt. KHADIM HUSSAIN through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents .). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ellahi Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- 3. Heard Mr. Altaf Ellahi Sheikh, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners who mainly contended that the documentary evidence such as P.T.D. and Site Plans (Exhs.D-1 and D-2) were never examined in their true perspective rather misread and misconstrued which resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. It is urged emphatically that disputed land was admittedly an evacuee property which aspect of the matter escaped notice of the learned trial and appellate Courts resulting in serious prejudice. It is also argued that undue importance has been given to the report of Local Commissioner, which being defective should have been discarded.
- 4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioners in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have minutely perused the judgment passed by teamed trial and appellate Courts. We have also gone through the judgment impugned. The entire evidence has been scanned with the eminent assistance of the learned Advocate Supreme Court. We are of the considered opinion that after having a careful evaluation of entire evidence the suit was decided by the learned trial Court findings whereof were upheld by the Appellate Court and concurred by the learned High Court being well based and strictly in accordance with law and settled norms of justice. The report of Local Commissioner has rightly been considered and relied upon by the forums below and no grave irregularity could be pointed out by the learned Advocate Supreme Court on the basis whereof the report of Local Commissioner could be discarded. We are conscious of the fact that concurrent findings are not sacrosanct and can be reversed when such findings are based on insufficient evidence, misreading of evidence, non-consideration of material evidence, erroneous assumption of facts, patent errors of law or consideration of inadmissible evidence or something so outrageous or so gross as to shock the very basis of justice. The learned Advocate Supreme Court, however, could not convince us that it is a case of misreading or non-reading of evidence or there is any jurisdictional or legal flaw. The factual controversy that petitioner has encroached upon 5 Marlas of the disputed land has been resolved after proper appreciation of evidence and we cannot reappraise the same as this Court does not undertake this task unless a substantial departure from settled principles concerning appreciation of evidence has occurred and moreso when the Court of first instance and the Court of appeal arrives at concurrent findings of fact after scrutinizing the evidence this Court does not interfere in such findings save in most exceptional circumstances which are lacking in this case. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum as laid down in cases titled Abdul Majid v. State (1971 SCMR 31), British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Razak-Abdul Kader (PLD 1967 SC 68), Shamshad Ali Shah v. Hassan Shah (PLD 1964 SC 143); Sarfaraz Ali Khan v. Crown (PLD 1951 FC 41); Muhammad Sharif v. Abdul Majid (1986 SCMR 190) and Sadiq Jan v. Muhammad Rashid (1985 SCMR 860). It is also well entrenched legal proposition that this Court does not interfere in the conclusion of the High Court which appears to be based upon adequate evidence both oral and documentary and is given in a detailed well -considered judgment and is supported by cogent reasons and careful analysis of relevant material. If any authority is needed reference can be made to D cases titled Khair Din v. Qudrat Ullah (1986 SCMR 763); Siraj Din v. Naseeruddin (1977 SCMR 511); Jalal v. State (1972 SCMR 273) and Md. Anwarullah Mazumdar v. Tamina Bibi (1971 SCMR 94).
Headnotes / Summary
S. 100
Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below
Interference by High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under S.100, C.P.C.
Concurrent findings are not sacrosanct and can be reversed when such findings are based on insufficient evidence, misreading of evidence, non-consideration of material evidence, erroneous assumption of facts, patent errors of law or consideration of inadmissible evidence or something so outrageous or so gross as to shock the very basis of justice.
S. 54
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185
Perpetual injunction, grant of
Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below
Suit for restraining the defendant from interference with the lawful possession of the plaintiff was decreed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree were affirmed by First Appellate Court
Second appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below was dismissed by the High Court
Supreme Court does not interfere in the conclusion of High Court which appears to be based upon adequate evidence both oral and documentary and is given in a detailed well-considered judgment and is supported by cogent reasons and careful analysis of relevant material
Defendant failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence nor there was any jurisdictional or legal flaw in the judgment and decree passed by High Court
Factual controversy in the present case had been resolved after proper appreciation of evidence-- Judgment and decree passed by High Court in second appeal was free from any illegality or infirmity and the same did not warrant any interference-- Leave to appeal was refused.
Art. 185(3)
Re-appraisal of evidence-- Principles
Supreme Court cannot undertake the task of re-appraisal of evidence unless a substantial departure from settled principles concerning appreciation of evidence has been made
Where the Court of first instance and the Court of appeal arrive at concurrent findings of fact after scrutinizing the evidence Supreme Court does not interfere in such findings save in most exceptional circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 24-5-2001 passed by learned Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench) whereby the regular second appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and judgment and decree dated 27-3-1986 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, affirming the judgment/decree dated 7-5-1984 passed by learned Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, has been kept intact.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that initially a suit for grant of perpetual injunction was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff for restraining the petitioners from interfering in their peaceful possession and illegal encroachment of land measuring 5 Marlas bearing Khasra Nos.424/27/1 and 425/27/2 in Khata No.90/152. In violation of the temporary injunction the petitioner allegedly encroached upon 5 Marlas of the land in dispute and resultantly amended plaint was filed seeking possession of encroached land. The petitioner contested the suit by raising various legal and factual objections and the claim of respondent/plaintiff was vehemently denied. After framing of issues and recording the evidence pro and contra the suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, by means of judgment and decree dated 7-5-1984. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, vide judgment/decree dated 27-3-1986 which too was assailed by preferring Regular Second Appeal. No. 31 of 1986 which also met the same fate, hence this petition.
3. Heard Mr. Altaf Ellahi Sheikh, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners who mainly contended that the documentary evidence such as P.T.D. and Site Plans (Exhs.D-1 and D-2) were never examined in their true perspective rather misread and misconstrued which resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. It is urged emphatically that disputed land was admittedly an evacuee property which aspect of the matter escaped notice of the learned trial and appellate Courts resulting in serious prejudice. It is also argued that undue importance has been given to the report of Local Commissioner, which being defective should have been discarded.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioners in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have minutely perused the judgment passed by teamed trial and appellate Courts. We have also gone through the judgment impugned. The entire evidence has been scanned with the eminent assistance of the learned Advocate Supreme Court. We are of the considered opinion that after having a careful evaluation of entire evidence the suit was decided by the learned trial Court findings whereof were upheld by the Appellate Court and concurred by the learned High Court being well based and strictly in accordance with law and settled norms of justice. The report of Local Commissioner has rightly been considered and relied upon by the forums below and no grave irregularity could be pointed out by the learned Advocate Supreme Court on the basis whereof the report of Local Commissioner could be discarded. We are conscious of the fact that concurrent findings are not sacrosanct and can be reversed when such findings are based on insufficient evidence, misreading of evidence, non-consideration of material evidence, erroneous assumption of facts, patent errors of law or consideration of inadmissible evidence or something so outrageous or so gross as to shock the very basis of justice. The learned Advocate Supreme Court, however, could not convince us that it is a case of misreading or non-reading of evidence or there is any jurisdictional or legal flaw. The factual controversy that petitioner has encroached upon 5 Marlas of the disputed land has been resolved after proper appreciation of evidence and we cannot reappraise the same as this Court does not undertake this task unless a substantial departure from settled principles concerning appreciation of evidence has occurred and moreso when the Court of first instance and the Court of appeal arrives at concurrent findings of fact after scrutinizing the evidence this Court does not interfere in such findings save in most exceptional circumstances which are lacking in this case. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum as laid down in cases titled Abdul Majid v. State (1971 SCMR 31), British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Razak-Abdul Kader (PLD 1967 SC 68), Shamshad Ali Shah v. Hassan Shah (PLD 1964 SC 143); Sarfaraz Ali Khan v. Crown (PLD 1951 FC 41); Muhammad Sharif v. Abdul Majid (1986 SCMR 190) and Sadiq Jan v. Muhammad Rashid (1985 SCMR 860). It is also well entrenched legal proposition that this Court does not interfere in the conclusion of the High Court which appears to be based upon adequate evidence both oral and documentary and is given in a detailed well -considered judgment and is supported by cogent reasons and careful analysis of relevant material. If any authority is needed reference can be made to D cases titled Khair Din v. Qudrat Ullah (1986 SCMR 763); Siraj Din v. Naseeruddin (1977 SCMR 511); Jalal v. State (1972 SCMR 273) and Md. Anwarullah Mazumdar v. Tamina Bibi (1971 SCMR 94).
5. In the light of foregoing discussion we are of the view that impugned judgment being free from any illegality or infirmity does not warrant any interference. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K/I-43/S Petition dismissed.