Substituting of findings

Petitioners/plaintiffs were aggrieved of judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below dismissing their suit and appeal respectively

Validity

Two Courts below concurrently recorded their findings of facts and law, which were in accordance with available evidence of parties

Findings of two Courts did not suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence, nor the same suffered from any illegality or material irregularity, warranting interference of High Court in revisional jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C.

Revisional Court could not substitute findings of Courts below with its own merely for the reason that its findings were more plausible than that of the Courts below

High Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below, as the same were neither result of misreading or non-reading of evidence nor petitioners / plaintiffs could point out any jurisdictional defect or material irregularities

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

While setting aside order of authority in constitutional jurisdiction, High Court cannot substitute its own findings in place of findings of such authority.