2003 PLP 1062 (CLC)
GUL MUHAMMAD TABASSAM — Petitioner Versus GULSHAN ARA and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1062 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GUL MUHAMMAD TABASSAM — Petitioner Versus GULSHAN ARA and 2 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1062 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1062 (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 1062 (CLC) (GUL MUHAMMAD TABASSAM — Petitioner Versus GULSHAN ARA and 2 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.
- 4. The petition is contested by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Arguments heard; writ petition and its annexures perused.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.5 & Sched. & S.14
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Scope-- Concurrent findings of Family Court and Appellate Court could not be successfully assailed in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court unless said Courts had exceeded jurisdiction, acted without jurisdiction or findings were based on no evidence
Constitutional petition also would not lie to challenge an order on 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 facts recorded by Courts below invested with jurisdiction to decide the matters
In absence of any misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence on record by Courts below, Constitutional petition filed against their judgment was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner's appeal against that order was also dismissed by respondent No.2, Additional District Judge, Multan vide (Annexure G).
2. In this Constitutional petition both the aforesaid decisions are called in question.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contested that both the aforesaid judgments are against law and facts for the following reasons:-- (i) From the evidence produced on record it was established that the welfare and interest of the minors demanded that their custody should be made over to the petitioner; and (ii) evidence was not correctly appraised and the impugned judgments suffer from non-reading and misreading of evidence.
4. The petition is contested by the learned counsel for respondent No.
1. Arguments heard; writ petition and its annexures perused.
5. Concurrent findings by the Family Court and the Appellate i 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 appreciated because findings of facts recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction cannot be disturbed simply on the ground that another view could be possible on the same evidence.
6. 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 matters should be decided by the Courts invested with jurisdiction to decide them.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgments reveal that plausible reasons have been given therein in support of the conclusions arrived at.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner had failed to draw my I attention to any portion of evidence, which was allegedly overlooked or was misread by any of the Courts below.
9. 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.