Finding of Fact

Such finding could not be assailed before the Supreme Court.

Such finding could not be assailed before the Supreme Court.

High Court, in exercise of advisory jurisdiction which was last fact finding forum had to decide reference application on facts and circumstances founded by Appellate Tribunal

High Court could not change finding of facts arrived at by Appellate Tribunal, therefore, High Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon proposed questions while exercising its advisory jurisdiction

High Court declined to answer questions proposed in reference application

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

Supreme Court does not normally go beyond finding of fact recorded by High Court unless it can be shown that such finding is on the face of it against evidence or so patently improbable or perverse that to accept the same, it would amount to perpetuating a grave miscarriage of justice or if there has been any misapplication of a principle relating to appreciation of evidence or finally if finding can be demonstrated to be physically impossible

Such is the practice and rule of Supreme Court in civil appeals and burden lies heavily on appellant to show that findings recorded by High Court are not sustainable on the record and should be interfered with by Supreme Court

While exercising power under Art.185(3) of the Constitution, Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own finding in place of finding of High Court.

Supreme Court generally does not interfere with finding of fact recorded by Service Tribunal while exercising power under Art.212 (3) of the Constitution.

Supreme Court does not normally go beyond finding of fact recorded by High Court unless it can be shown that such finding is on the face of it against evidence or so patently improbable or perverse that to accept the same, it would amount to perpetuating a grave miscarriage of justice or if there has been any misapplication of a principle relating to appreciation of evidence or finally if finding can be demonstrated to be physically impossible

Such is the practice and rule of Supreme Court in civil appeals and burden lies heavily on appellant to show that findings recorded by High Court are not sustainable on the record and should be interfered with by Supreme Court

While exercising power under Art.185(3) of the Constitution, Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own finding in place of finding of High Court.

High Court can interfere with such findings on question of law or error of jurisdiction.

Finding of fact recorded by Service Tribunal on the basis of record and evidence before the Service Tribunal cannot be interfered by Supreme Court.

Finding of fact cannot be based on conjectures and surmises but must be based on admissible evidence.

Findings of fact based on unattested copy of document as against attested copy would not be legally sustainable and had to be set aside.

Findings of fact-Findings of fact were based on proper consideration of the material facts by the High Court in accordance with the provisions of S.115, C.P.C

No jurisdictional or procedural defect was found

Leave to appeal refused.

Submissions made on factual aspects of the case had been concluded by the findings of fact rendered by the three Courts below-No justification for interference was found

Leave to appeal refused.

Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Finding was one of fact, High Court, held, rightly declined to interfere.

Petition dismissed.

Controversy on fact, as to whether land was evacuee or it belonged to the Government and was transferred to respondent, was resolved by the findings rendered by two higher Courts in favour of respondent

No documentary evidence had been relied upon by petitioner to show otherwise

Leave to appeal was refused.

Petition dismissed.

Applicant Court on the basis of oral evidence supported by documentary evidence found that respondent was wife. of deceased and therefore entitled to her share in his estate

Such finding was upheld by High Court

Question of fact having been decided against the petitioner no case for interference was made out

Petition ,vas dismissed.

Revenue Authorities being independent in their matters, findings and orders of the such authorities are not binding on the Civil Courts.

Findings of fact, held. could not be interfered with at appeal stage before Supreme Court.

Petitioner pointed out certain discrepancies and other similar aspects relating to the appraisal of evidence so as to contend that findings of fact by two lower Courts merited to be set aside

No justification having been found by Supreme Court for interference leave to appeal was refused.

Question whether delay was due to bona fide mistake not involving any element of negligence, being purely a question of fact. findings of Appellate Court could not ordinarily be reversed in constitutional jurisdiction without examining features of case

Ejectment order restored.

Default in payment of arrears of rent-Petitioner a non-claimant failing to pay arrears of rent and having not challenged for 13 years transfer made by competent authority in favour of respondent, held, was not entitled to transfer of property

Delay on his part debarred him from seeking relief when vested rights had been created in respect of that property in favour of others to whom P.T.D. had been issued.

Petitioners having failed to produce original deed of sale, presumption arising against them that they had deprived respondent of opportunity to disprove execution of deed by producing cogent evidence

Suit decreed and decision upheld in appeal and revision-Findings of fact by Courts below not suffering from any substantial defect

Leave to appeal refused.

Finding of fact as against petitioner calling for no interference, heave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.

Neither any misreading nor any omission to read any relevant piece of evidence on the part of Trial Court and Additional District Judge found

High Court merely reappraising evidence and coming to conclusion different from that recorded by two Courts below on basis of same evidence which had already been appraised by said Courts

Fallacy in appraising evidence as to a fact, unless it amounts to a material mistaken assumption, was merely an error in coming to a finding as to that fact and such error has never been held to be an error of law justifying interference in second appeal

High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground on an erroneous finding of fact, however gross and inexcusable the error might seem to be unless there was an error in procedure provided by law which might possibly have produced an error or defect in decision

Leave refused.

Finding of fact arrived at by authority below, held, could not be interfere with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.

Art. 199-West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(i)-Writ jurisdiction-Findings of fact-"Workman"-Question whether or not a person is workman-Depending upon nature of duties-Mistri

Despite specific objection against his claim of being a workman not leading any evidence regarding nature of duties to prove that performance of any manual work was predominant feature of his responsibilities-Evidence on behalf of employer indicating that main duty was to supervise work of workers placed under him and some times as sundry duty used to do work with own hand when a worker was unable to do that work-Labour Appellate Tribunal recording finding of fact unequivocally reflecting that petitioner supervised work of workmen working under him and handled manual work incidentally and was thus not a workman-Order of Labour Appellate Tribunal challenged in writ petition before High Court-Petition, in circumstances rejected-Held: While exercising judicial review there is no reason to ignore findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal in respect of duties performed by petitioner.

Ss. 13 & 15-Finding of fact-Concurrent findings of fact by three Courts below on question of relationship of landlord and tenant-Cannot be interfered with.-[Finding of fact].

Finding of fact-Contention that lower Court ignored fact of respondents having consented to schemes under consideration and wrongly thought as asserted by petitioner's counsel against record, that no consent had been given Counsel drawing attention to certain pages of Paper Book to show consent having been given-Counsel unable to answer in affirmative whether documents relied upon placed before lower Court-Question of alleged consent from respondent's side having been resolved by lower Court on good grounds, no reason, held, existed for not accepting respondents' plea of no consent having been given by them.

Finding based on proper appreciation of evidence-Cannot be taken exception to.

S. 16-Suit land allotted to petitioner on a quad permanent basis Petitioner executing document acknowledging rights of respondents much before coming into operation of Act XLVII of 1958-Deed in suit, held, in no way hit by provisions contained in S. 16 of Act XLVII of 1958.

Question whether goods were sold to manufacturing licence-holders and whether such sales were genuine -Findings on questions-Findings on fact-Sales Tax Act (ill of 1951), S. 17(2).

Letters Patent Appeal-Finding of fact-Evidence on question whether B was daughter of Knot properly appreciated and question decided by Courts below on fanciful grounds-Letters Paten Bench, held, justified, in circumstance, to go through evidence all~ come to correct finding-Letters Patent (Lahore), Cl. 10.

Art. 98-Finding of fact-High Court, held, justified in not interfering with finding of fact in writ proceeding.

S. 100-Second appeal Finding of fact-Pre-emption suit-Two suits by rival pre-emptors K and W-Decree in favour to K set aside (on misreading of evidence) by first appellate Curt on ground of collusion-High Court, in second appeal, finding conclusion arrived at by first appellate Court to be due to misreading of evidence-Finding of fact by first appellate Court, in circumstance, held, not binding in second appeal and decree in favour of K restored by High Court.

-Burden of proof - Document executed by illiterate pardanashin lady contested on basis of fraud-Court to be more careful in assessing evidence with regard to genuineness or otherwise of such document-Lower Appellate Court shifting onus on party other than claiming its genuineness and finding of fact so arrived at even by ignoring material evidence on record, held, not binding on High Court in second appeal-Civil Procedure Code, S. 100 - Finding of fact - Second appeal.

Art. 58(3)-Finding of fact-Cannot be agitated before Supreme Court.

finding arrived at, by Courts below on question of paternity-Finding, held, not to be re-opened unless against evidence perverse and resulting in miscarriage of justice-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3).

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100-Finding of fact-Finding vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence could be interfered with.

S. 100-Second appeal Finding off act-Findings of both lower Courts as to genuineness of entries in tenant's ledger - Findings of fact - Cannot be disturbed in second appeal.

Art. 98-Finding of' fact Held, rightly not interfered with by High Court-Special Leave 7to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.

Art. 98-Finding of fact Finding unwarranted or based upon clear and manifest misreading of evidence-High Court, in writ jurisdiction, justified in reversing such finding.

Criminal appeal-Finding of fact-Lower Court overlooking material portions of evidence Evidence scrutinized by Supreme Court in appeal.

Ss. 3 & 30Findings of fact - Cannot be re-opened in appeal - Question whether or not case falls under S. 3-A question of law - Appeal under S. 30, competent.

Second appeal - Finding of fact Lower appellate Court reversing findings of trial Court on erroneous reasoning and incorrect exposition of law and by ignoring evidence on record-Finding of lower appellate Court, in circumstances, held, not sacrosanct in second appeal.

Art. 98 read with National and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Act (VII of 1964), S. 53-Writ jurisdiction-Finding of fact-Chief Election Commissioner finding, on evidence adduced, that extra marks did not exist on ballot papers at polling time-High Court, in circumstances, held, could not interfere with such finding of fact by Chief Election Commissioner.

Finding of Fact -Finding of fact of Court of first instance Whether can be disturbed by appellate Court-Records of domestic enquiry showing interpolation-Industrial Court arriving at finding of fact on basis of such enquiry-Appellate Court, in circumstances, held, competent to disturb such finding of fact.

S. 100-Finding of fact-Finding that promissory note had been executed without considera­tion-Whether High Court in second appeal could disturb such finding-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court.