Concurrent findings

Concurrent findings cannot be allowed to sustain where they are demonstrably contrary to the principles repeatedly highlighted by the Supreme Court in various case law.

First Information Report (FIR) in respect of the alleged occurrence had been lodged with reasonable promptitude wherein the present appellant was named with specific role of firing

Complainant and two others were natural witnesses of the occurrence being the inmates of the house wherein the occurrence had taken place and the time of occurrence was such that they were likely to be present in their house at that time

Appellant had a close relationship with the complainant i.e., he was the son of his maternal aunt

Complainant had absolutely no reason to falsely implicate the appellant in the murder of his daughter

Medical evidence had provided full support to the ocular account furnished by the said three witnesses

Both the Courts below had undertaken an exhaustive analysis of the evidence available on the record and had then concurred in their conclusion regarding guilt of the appellant having been established to the hilt, thus, the Supreme Court had not been able to take a view of the matter different from that concurrently taken by the Courts below

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Interference in concurrent findings by High Court is permissible only when such findings are shown to be illegal, perverse, or based on extraneous considerations.

Before invoking such power, it should be seen as to whether order or judgment in the scrutiny is illegal, unlawful or suffers from material irregularities contemplated under S.115, C.P.C.

In the present case, the petitioner failed to bring the case within the four corners of pre-conditions hedged in S.115, C.P.C, so, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in absence of any material illegality or irregularity would not be safe for the purpose of administration of justice

Petitioners failed to point out any special circumstances warranting interference of the High Court in the revisional jurisdiction

Revision, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Impugned judgments and decrees did not suffer from any infirmity, rather law on the subject had rightly been construed and appreciated

As such, the concurrent findings on record could not be disturbed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S.115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Revision filed by the plaintiff , being merit-less, was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Brief facts were that the applicant company along with another entered into a contract with the respondent company for a project of Balancing, Modernization and Rehabilitation at the applicants' factory

Disputes arose between the parties and were referred to two arbitrators who gave conflicting awards, leading to the appointment of an umpire, who issued his award and same was made rule of the court

Subsequent civil appeals and applications by the applicants were dismissed at various stages, with the final appellate judgment and decree dated 13.05.2009 upholding the umpire's award

The applicants then filed the present civil revision under S. 115, C.P.C., challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below

Legal issue requiring determination was as to "Whether a revision application under S.115, C.P.C. lay against an appellate judgment rendered under S. 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and whether the High Court could interfere with the concurrent findings and the umpire's award within the limited supervisory jurisdiction"?

Held: a second appeal was not available against an order setting aside or refusing to set aside the award, however, the aggrieved party was entitled to file a revision application

The scope of revision application was limited and the court could only interfere if the subordinate court had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity

Therefore, at the outset, it was observed that the present revision application was maintainable as under S. 39 of the Arbitration Act no second appeal lay under the scheme of the Act

The primary dispute between the parties was whether certain works undertaken by the respondent were beyond the scope of the contract

It was contended by the applicant, as articulated in the impugned judgement and not during the course of arguments before the High Court, that the extra work undertaken by the respondent was beyond the scope of the contract and the agreement ought to be void for "uncertainty"

Whereas, the award as well as the impugned judgment, placing reliance on clause 51.1 of the general conditions of contract had rendered a finding that the agreement between the parties stipulated additional work

There was no error, factual or legal, floating on the face of the record and the High Court was not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment

Further, the appellate court had correctly curtailed its jurisdiction by holding that the said court was not a court of appeal and the jurisdiction, even if liberally interpreted at the appellate stage, was of a supervisory nature

The scope of interference, in the jurisdiction of the High Court under S.115, C.P.C., against concurrent findings of the court below, was further circumscribed

Applicants failed to bring the present case within the constricted scope and therefore the present revision application was dismissed.

For de novo appreciation of evidence, the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court is not an amenable forum in such regard

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

The ambit of a constitutional petition is not that of a forum of appeal, nor does it automatically become such a forum in instances where no further appeal is provided, and is restricted inter alia to appreciate whether any manifest illegality is apparent from the order impugned

Where the fora of subordinate jurisdiction has exercised its discretion in one way and that discretion has been judicially exercised on sound principles the supervisory forum would not interfere with that discretion, unless same is contrary to law or usage having the force of law

The impugned judgments appeared to be well-reasoned and no manifest infirmity was discernable therein or that they could not have been rested upon the rationale relied upon

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

While pressing constitutional jurisdiction in such like matter, the petitioner must establish that the findings of two Courts below, particularly of Appellate Court, are prima facie not in accordance with law and available material

There is no denial to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and in such like matter the claim is to be accepted once landlord states on oath and same goes un-shattered in cross-examinantion

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked as substitute of another appeal against the order of the Appellate Court

Therefore, mere fact that upon perusal of evidence there exists possibility of a different view would never be sufficient to seek concurrent findings disturbed by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court

Constitutional Petition was dismissed.

Lady/plaintiff's suit seeking cancellation of mutations claiming that she had not alienated suit-property (her inherited share) to her brother (defendant), was decreed

Petitioners (sons of deceased defendant/nephews of lady) assailed decree in favour of the respondent (lady /plaintiff) and consequently impugned mutations stood cancelled

Validity

Courts below have committed no illegality, irregularity and wrong exercise of jurisdiction, rather after evaluating evidence on record have reached to a just conclusion that the petitioners/ defendants have miserably failed to prove their case through trustworthy and reliable evidence

The impugned judgments and decrees do not suffer from any infirmity, rather law on the subject has rightly been construed and appreciated

Concurrent findings on record cannot be disturbed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S.115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Revision being merit-less was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

The question relating to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant inter se parties was undoubtedly a question of fact which had been concurrently resolved by both the courts below in favour of respondent

Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be resorted merely on the ground that from the available material some other view is possible

There are concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below, which apparently did not suffer from any legal infirmity

High Court is also not ordinarily inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, particularly when they are not shown to be contrary to record or arbitrary or whimsical

In the present case, apart from the bald assertions, no specific instance was brought to the notice of the Court that might be regarded as a case of misreading or non-reading of material evidence, having direct and decisive bearing on the issues

Both the Courts exercised the jurisdiction vested in them, without violating any principles governing the assessment and appraisal of evidence

Both the judgments were well-reasoned having been passed after taking into consideration every aspect of the case

Constitutional petition, being meritless, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners had neither pointed out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below nor identified any jurisdictional defect

Concurrent findings of fact did not call for any interference by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction

Civil revision, being devoid of any merits, was dismissed with costs throughout.

Normally the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is not supposed to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, unless there are exceptional circumstances to do so.

Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by predecessor of appellants for want of proof, whereas it decreed the counter suit filed by the respondents, and the District/Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Trial Court

Validity

Question whether the plaintiff now survived by appellants herein was the owner of land or whether the suit land was in the ownership of respondents, was a pure question of facts and both the Courts below had concurrently decided the same

Thus, the concurrent findings of facts could not be disturbed in Second Appeal unless some flagrant misreading, non-reading of evidence or violation of any settled law was pointed out

Appellants had failed to point out apparent violation of any settled law by the Courts below while passing the impugned concurrent judgments, thus the impugned judgment and decrees deserved to be maintained

No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned judgments and decrees, Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

High Court could not interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below until and unless there had been found any material irregularity or misapplication of law

In view of the conduct and demeanor of the petitioner/tenant coupled with peculiar facts of the present case, he did not deserve any equitable relief

Constructional petition was dismissed, in circumstances .

Concurrent findings of the Courts below on a question of fact, if not based on misreading or non-reading of evidence and not suffering from any illegality or material irregularity effecting the merits of the case are not open to question at the revisional stage.

Concurrent findings of facts were against the petitioner which did not call for any interference by the High Court in absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction

No illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional defect had been noticed in the impugned order and judgment passed by the courts below

Constitutional petition, filed by objection applicant, was dismissed in limine being devoid of any force.

Though the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is reluctant to interfere in the concurrent findings of the Courts below, however, it is not a rule of thumb and the High Court cannot close its eyes where the Courts below misinterpreted the material available on record or erred in appreciating the same, in its proper perspective, or overlooked to comprehend the same.

Claim of the plaintiff in the suit was that his father purchased suit-land on the basis of oral agreement to sell from the defendants , which was concurrently dismissed

Validity

Petitioner/ plaintiff had neither pointed out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below nor identified any jurisdictional defect

Concurrent findings of fact were against the petitioner which did not call for any interference by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction

No illegality or infirmity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below

Revision filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, in circumstances.

Suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Trial Court which judgment and decree was maintained by the Appellate Court

Validity

Concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners/plaintiffs did not call for any interference by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction

Revision filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed, in circumstances.

Concurrent findings of fact did not call for any interference by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in absence of any illegality or material irregularity, mis-reading and non-reading of evidence or error of jurisdiction.

Findings of lower Courts on question of facts and law based upon proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence are not liable to be reviewed or substituted by the High Court

Concurrent findings of the fact cannot be disturbed unless Courts below while recording findings of the facts have either misread the evidence or have ignored any material piece of evidence or they are perverse and reflect some jurisdictional error.

Petitioner claimed to be owner of the property purchased by him against due consideration vide mutation in question from the owner against whom decree for recovery of maintenance had been passed by Family Court

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently declared the mutation void for it was entered to avoid payment of maintenance allowance to respondents

Validity

Judgment debtor neglected to fulfill his obligations imposed upon him through decree passed by Family Court and to pay maintenance allowance to minors

Petitioner appeared before Family Court in response to the application seeking restraining order against petitioner from alienating the property who within a period of 3 to 4 months alienated the property through mutation to his real brother

Such transfer of property reflected that mutation was nothing but a sham transaction to avoid maintenance, which was duty of judgment debtor

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by two Courts below who concurrently reached to the conclusion that the only purpose of the mutation was to avoid payment under decree passed by Family Court

Petitioner failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in orders passed by two Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Concurrent findings of two courts below supporting all a preponderance of claims were not to be interfered in revisional jurisdiction, unless extraordinary circumstances were demonstrated by the applicants

Revisional Court did not sit in reappraisal of the evidence and was thus distinguishable from a Court of the appellate jurisdiction.

Police concluded that the application filed by complainant was not based on facts and started proceedings under S.182, P.P.C. by chalking out a Qalandra against him, however, during the proceedings before the Trial Court his application under S.249-A, Cr.P.C, was accepted

Petitioner /accused filed present constitutional petition as his revision petition filed against the acquittal order was dismissed by Sessions Court

Validity

There were concurrent findings of both the Courts below against the petitioner

In case of concurrent findings of the Courts below, scope of the constitutional petition becomes very limited

Petitioner failed to point out any misreading or non- reading of the evidence

Petitioner failed to point out as to how the concurrent findings of the Courts below were the consequence of error of law or were without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction

Constitutional petition, being meritless , was dismissed in limine.

Concurrent findings of facts cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless mis-reading or non-reading of evidence is pointed out by the appellant or flagrant violation of any statutory law has been committed by the Courts below.

High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction can not interfere in the concurrent findings arrived by Courts below unless the findings of courts below are result of misreading and non-reading or perverse or non- appraisal of some material evidence

Revisional Court cannot substitute the concurrent findings of courts below with its own merely for the reason that another view is possible.

Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction is not permitted to re-open the case, rather the court confines itself only to law point involved in the matter or any specific portion of evidence if omitted by the courts below

Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with by the High Court until and unless grave injustice or material irregularity is proved.

Concurrent findings of facts, in absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction, did not call for any interference by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

Erroneous concurrent findings based on misreading and non-reading of evidence are not sacrosanct from interference while invoking revisional jurisdiction under S. 115, C.P.C.

Contention of the petitioner/surety was that he stood surety only for a certain amount, and not for entire satisfaction of decree, while said /certain amount had already been paid by him during execution proceedings, therefore, he was liable to be released and his property de-attached

Validity

High court could not interfere with the findings recorded by the Family Court which later were concurred with by the Appellate Court, and both were in accordance with the law/evidence

In the present case, neither any jurisdictional error of the Courts below had been challenged nor conduct of proceedings by the Courts below had been called in question

No illegality was found in the impugned concurrent judgments of the Courts below, which could not be interfered with especially when the same were based upon substantial evidence which the petitioner had not been able to controvert during the proceedings before the Courts below

Both the Courts had recorded findings of facts assigning cogent and sound reasoning which did not warrant any interference by the High Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Concurrent finings of facts cannot be disturbed when the same do not suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence, howsoever.

Revisional jurisdiction was not meant to unearth another possible view from evidence which was contra to the findings rendered by two Courts of competent jurisdiction

There could be no interference with concurrent findings unless some patent illegality or material irregularity crept up on the record.

Revision application filed against concurrent findings of courts below and that too against execution application has extremely narrow scope.

Mere fact that another view was possible on appraisal of evidence, concurrent findings of the fact in revisionary jurisdiction would not be disturbed.

In case of concurrent findings of the courts below, scope of the constitutional petition becomes very limited.

Findings of the fact/law recorded concurrently by the courts below usually cannot be interfered/upset by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

Concurrent findings of courts could not be upset by the Chief Court in its revisional jurisdiction in a casual manner, rather it had to be proved that the same were preserve, arbitrary or were based on mis-reading or non-reading of evidence

Findings on question of fact or law recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction, could not be interfered with by the Chief Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, unless such findings suffered from jurisdictional defects, illegality or material irregularity which were lacking in the case

Both the Courts below had properly exercised the jurisdiction vested in them

Chief Court maintained the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

When the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were concurrent; howsoever erroneous, such findings could not be interfered with by the Chief Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, unless such findings suffered from controversial defects

Chief Court maintained the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Findings of facts concurrently recorded by the Courts below cannot be disturbed until and unless a case of non-reading or misreading of evidence is made out or gross illegality is shown to have been committed.

Scope of revisionary jurisdiction of High Court was limited and confined to correction of jurisdictional defect, patent illegality/irregularity affecting the merit of the case and not for substantiating its own finding

High Court could not disturb the concurrent findings on factual controversy arrived by the fora below until the impugned judgments are based on misreading/non-reading of evidence.

Held, merely on ground that party had interest in the suit property by itself was no ground to remand the matter in order to frustrate the previous proceeding.

Judgments/decrees of both the courts below were not immune from interference of High Court by invoking revisional jurisdiction, provided the judgments/decrees were result of concealment of fact, mis-reading/non-reading of record and by not filing the suit with clean hands.

Concurrent findings recorded on facts, when do not suffer from any misreading and non-reading of evidence, howsoever erroneous, cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Normally High Court in revisional jurisdiction is slow in interfering in concurrent findings of two courts below but where there is prima facie misreading as well departure from settled principles of law High Court is always competent to disturb such concurrent findings.

High Court was not supposed to interfere with findings on controversial question of facts, even if such findings were erroneous

Scope of judicial review of High Court in such cases was limited to the extent of misreading/non-reading of evidence or if the findings were based on evidence which might cause miscarriage of justice

High Court would not disturb the findings of facts through reappraisal of evidence in Constitutional jurisdiction or exercise such jurisdiction as substitute of revision/appeal.

Scope of constitutional petition becomes very limited in case of concurrent findings of the courts below.

Interference for the mere fact that the appraisal of evidence may suggest another view of the matter is not warranted in second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact

If different conclusions/inference from evidence is possible even then concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts is sacrosanct and immune from interference in the second appeal.

High Court while dilating upon the concurrent findings of two courts below cannot disturb findings of fact even if erroneous, however, gross and inexcusable error may be except on strong legal grounds.