Concurrent Finding of Fact

High Court does not interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below but, when it is evident that evidence on record was misread or non-read, interference was warranted to correct the jurisdictional errors or miscarriage of justice.

No scope for interference in such findings in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, which was essentially meant for correcting errors of law committed by subordinate courts

Revisional jurisdiction was restricted and narrower.

S. 13(2) (iv) read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Concurrent findings-Both Courts below finding tenant having removed intervening wall between two portions of property and thereby caused damage to property and impaired its value-Finding, held, could not be said to be based on no evidence or being result of misreading of evidence and petition for leave to appeal liable to dismissal.[Evidence].

Art. 185(3)-Concurrent findings of fact-Courts below, including High Court, concurrently finding shop in dispute being reasonably and in good faith required by landlord 'for use of his son

Finding being based on evidence on a question of fact, held, cannot be questioned in Supreme Court-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13(3) (a)(ii).

No material irregularity in proceeding and no wrong exercise of jurisdiction -Revisional Court, held, not justified, in circumstances, in upsetting decree for ejectment passed by lower Court

N. W. F. P. Tenancy Act (XXV of 1950), S. 60.

Supported by lower Courts by "careful and elaborate consideration of evidence"-Supreme Court rejected plea challenging such findings.

Concurrent Finding of Fact Concurrent finding of fact-Arrived at by Courts below about due service of summons-Set aside in revision-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115.

Concurrent Finding of Fact In view of the definite finding that the four accused appellants were in joint possession of all the silver which was the basis for a prosecution under the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1952, arrived at by both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court on the facts relied on by them, the Supreme Court declined to interfere and held that the joint trial of the four accused was in order.

Concurrent Finding of Fact Concurrent finding of fact-By lower Courts-Supreme Court hill not interfere. The Courts below had not accepted the theory that the original of the photographic copy of a will was a forgery. In the Supreme Court, no reason was shown that this theory should have been accepted. Their Lordships declined to interfere with the concurrent finding of the lower Courts.

S. 114-Concurrent finding of fact-Not to be interfered with by Privy Council.