1994 PLP 973 (SCMR)

SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court whereby the second appeal filed by them has been dismissed.

2. Respondent No.l filed suit for declaration pleading that he did not execute any power of attorney in favour of Naik Muhammad, respondent No.2 and did not sell the property in dispute to the petitioners and that the said power of attorney was a forged document and he continues to be the owner of the land. The petitioners contested the suit and pleaded that their predecessor -in‑interest had purchased the property under a registered sale‑deed which was executed by respondent No.2 as attorney of respondent . No. l who had a registered power of attorney in his favour from respondent No.l. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence of both the parties came to the conclusion that the power of attorney was forged and was not executed by respondent No.l and consequently suit filed by him was decreed. The petitioners filed appeal before the District Judge, which was dismissed. They then filed second appeal, before the High Court which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that all the Courts have ignored the evidence of defence witnesses and have not properly, appreciated the documentary and oral evidence on record. He has particularly referred to the statement of D.W.3, who according to the petitioners was Lambardar at the relevant time and had supported the petitioners by stating that the power of attorney was executed by respondent No.l. We have examined the judgments of all the Courts below and find that the learned trial Court has fully discussed the testimony of all the witnesses. With regard to D.W.3 it was observed that he cannot be relied upon as Mst. Nazir Begum, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners was his sister. It was on account of close relationship and on appreciation of documentary as well as oral evidence that the learned trial Court rejected his evidence and decreed the suit. This finding was upheld in the first appeal as well as in the second appeal. We find that the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court is proper, reasonable and cannot be assailed on the ground that the evidence has been misread or misappreciated. Such conclusion can reasonably and by properly appreciating the evidence could be drawn and has rightly been drawn by the. Courts. The learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court could not have interfered with the concurrent finding of fact by two Courts below which are duly supported by the evidence documentary as well as oral. It may be noted that such concurrent finding of fact cannot be disturbed merely on the ground of misappreciation or misreading of evidence. Such finding can be challenged only if it is based on extraneous considerations not supported by the facts on record and is result of surmises and conjectures. If no error of law or defect in procedure has been committed in coming to finding of fact, the High Court is bound by such finding. If there exists on record evidence to sustain the finding, then even if the High Court comes to the conclusion that a different finding could be given on the basis of such evidence it will not be a ground for interference. We do not find any force in the petition and refuse to grant leave. AA./M‑1873/S refused.