Question of Fact

Respondent argued that the petitioners had got their appointments through backdoor, thus could not agitate any grievance on the pretext of denial of due opportunity of hearing to them

Validity

High Court could not determine the veracity of the documents, petitioners' claims and counter-claims, being disputed questions of facts between the parties, could not be adjudicated by the High Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction

High Court could not give sanctity to the appointment letters of the petitioners

Chief Secretary was directed to constitute a committee headed by him, conduct an inquiry of alleged fraud/forgery in the appointments and subsequent events, after providing ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, fix responsibility and take action against the delinquent officials strictly in accordance with law and submit a report to the Court

Constitutional petitions were dismissed accordingly.

Two forums i.e. Adjudicating Officer and Collector Appeals concurred with department by holding that invoices in question were irrelevant

Customs Appellate Tribunal held the invoices as relevant and declared that goods was legally imported against payment of duties

Validity

Such was question of fact which was finally determined by Customs Appellate Tribunal

Reference before High Court lay when there was substantial question of law raised for adjudication

Question of law once determined by Customs Appellate Tribunal could not be re-agitated before High Court as jurisdiction under S.196 of Customs Act, 1969, was limited only to answer question of law

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal

Reference was dismissed, in circumstances.

Two forums i.e. Adjudicating Officer and Collector Appeals concurred with department by holding that invoices in question were irrelevant

Customs Appellate Tribunal held the invoices were relevant and declared that goods were legally imported through those documents

Validity

Fact that seized goods were imported against invoices, was determined by Customs Appellate Tribunal as final hierarchy under Customs Act, 1969, for determining question of fact

High Court had very limited jurisdiction under S.196 Customs Act, 1969, and could not interfere with questions of fact determined by the Tribunal on the ground that on reappraisal of available record, a different conclusion could be drawn

High Court was to answer and interpret questions of law raised by any party to proceedings from judgment passed by the Tribunal

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal

Reference was dismissed, in circumstances.

High Court, while deciding whether or not to issue a writ of certiorari, could not supplement the order of a tribunal with reasons that are not present in such an order

In exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, Court could not determine questions of fact, or do what the Full Bench, National Industrial Relations Commission was supposed to have done

High Court, in Constitutional jurisdiction, had full powers to do justice but could not substitute its own decision for the decision of the tribunal below.

Plaintiffs had failed to point out any mis-reading or non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Department assailed order of Appellate Tribunal whereby it had endorsed the findings of Commissioner Inland Revenue (CIR) (Appeals) who had decided the issue on the basis of facts

Validity

Concurrent findings of facts recorded by two appellate fora, unless found to be either perverse or contrary to record, could not be interfered with by the High Court, while examining proposed questions of law

Scope of reference jurisdiction was restricted only to the extent of examining questions of law arising from order passed by Appellate Tribunal and not to decide questions of facts or determine disputed facts

Only substantial legal questions arising from an order passed by Appellate Tribunal could be examined

Question requiring no interpretation of any provision of law, rules or regulations, or its application on undisputed facts of a case, did not constitute a "question of law" to be decided by High Court

High Court declined to exercise advisory jurisdiction as the decision of Appellate Tribunal was based on findings of facts recorded by CIR (Appeals)

Reference application was decided against the department.

Petitioner/father contended that maintenance allowance decreed in favour of wife and children, was beyond his financial status

Validity

Marriage between the parties, admittedly existed

Maintenance allowance of the children was to be consistent with the monthly earning of father

Monthly salary drawn by the father was on record and admitted by father also during the evidence which was thoroughly discussed by the Appellate Court

Disputed question of facts as to the maintenance allowance and dowry articles etc based on evidence had been assailed by the petitioner, which could not be entertained in constitutional petition

No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed.

Scope of writ jurisdiction.

Decision or determination of Appellate Tribunal on question of fact attains finality, thereby making the Tribunal a final forum in such regard

Failure to advert to a question raised before Appellate Tribunal in itself is a question of law.

Importer was aggrieved of order passed by authorities whereby they disallowed benefit of exemption certificate issued by Income Tax Department

Validity

Advisory jurisdiction of High Court under S. 196 of Customs Act, 1969, was clearly distinguishable from its appellate or revisional jurisdiction

Purpose of reference was not to get a decision for or against a party before Tribunal but it was for resolution of a problematic or debatable legal question

Unless there was perversity, the question of fact could not be examined by High Court

Exemption certificate was issued under the impression that importer was a manufacturer

Importer was not engaged in manufacturing process, therefore, on the face of it importer did not fulfil condition of exemption certificate, therefore, Customs authorities had acted lawfully

Order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal was well reasoned and grounded on correct principle of law relevant to the facts of the case

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of petitioners was that respondents/authorities were bent upon to cancel the registration of the hostel and seal the same with mala fide intention

Validity

Trustees of the Organization-Trust having not been impleaded as party, writ petition was not maintainable

Petitioners had an alternate remedy in the shape of revision against the impugned order/letter before the competent court but instead of availing the same they had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court which was not warranted

Reports of investigating authorities on the basis of which impugned order/letter had been issued had not been challenged

Question of fact could only be resolved by recording evidence before the concerned authority/forum and High Court could not do the same while exercising writ jurisdiction

No permission for establishment of hostel was available on record

Registrar District Council was not empowered to register or issue registration certificate with regard to registration of hostels who had issued the same

District Council could perform functions of construction and maintenance of buildings to be used as hostels for students and could also arrange programs for training of teachers

Registration of welfare agencies was mandatory with the Kashmir Council/Registration Authority but no such registration was available on record

No illegality, irregularity, mala fide or violation of any law or infringement of any constitutional right of petitioners had been pointed out in the impugned order/letter

Mere levelling an allegation of mala fide did not create any reason for interference in the domain of administrative authorities

Writ petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff Trust filed suit against defendants before Banking Court but later on plaint was withdrawn and filed in court of plenary jurisdiction

Plaintiff sought exclusion of time spent before Banking Court on the ground that it was a bona fide mistake

Validity

Whether suit was filed in Banking Court with bona fide intention or with sheer negligence or plaintiff was prosecuting suit in Banking Court in good faith, the same was mix question of law and fact

Plaintiff was entitled to lead evidence to prove its bona fides and instead of technical knockout, it would be in the interest of justice to decide the case on its own merits

Controversy raised by plaintiff required evidence, therefore, both parties at the time of settlement of issues could suggest specific issue regarding the same and controversy could be decided after leading evidence

Application was disposed of accordingly.

Question whether an agreement is severable or not for purpose of enforcing partial specific performance depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case and the question is essentially a question of fact.

Controversial question of fact though could be resolved through an affidavit, but it was only when the fact was specifically pleaded supported by an affidavit and same went unrebutted through counter affidavit.

Dispute was with regard to grant of sanction for permanent alienation to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents by the Commissioner

Validity

Such question could only be determined by a forum competent to decide the same

Supreme Court advised the petitioners to avail remedy before the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance in accordance with law

Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Appellate Tribunal against the findings of the authorities had concluded that the assessee was entitled-to the concession to Self-Assessment Scheme

Validity

Issue did not involve or raise a substantial legal controversy between the Revenue Authorities and the assessee

Every question of law need not be referred to High Court and only a question having some substance was required to be so referred

Question as framed was neither of law nor had raised a substantial legal controversy between the parties High Court refused to entertain the question

Reference was dismissed in limine.

Question was more of an argument rather than a question of law, High Court declined to answer such question.

Controversy compelling filing of the reference was that the assessee had wrongly declared his income as earned from poultry farm

Revenue Authorities on the basis of report of a revenue official did not accept the income as declared by the assessee and-re-opened the case under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Validity

Questions as framed did not raise any legal controversy to be answered by High Court

Question whether an assessee derived income from a particular business in a particular assessment period was a pure question of fact and the same did not raise any legal controversy

Report of the revenue official was never a moot point before the Tribunal

Question of law was said to be raised only when it was either properly raised and ruled upon by the Tribunal or it otherwise had arisen as a natural consequence of the order of the Tribunal

Where neither of the two conditions were available High Court would refuse to entertain the question as framed

Question as to the availability of an information justifying reopening of assessment was a predominantly question of fact, and therefore, could not be a subject-matter of reference under S.136(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Reference was answered in negative.

Factual controversy was raised in the reference which was with regard to number of power looms being run by the assessee

Validity

None of the two questions as framed had arisen out of the order of the: Tribunal nor otherwise the questions could be taken to be questions of law raising any legal controversy

Issue of number of power looms operating by the assessee in a particular year was a question of fact

Question framed for reference to High Court and actually referred by the Tribunal were neither raised before the Tribunal nor ruled upon by it

Question of fact could be answered by High Court only if it was raised before the Tribunal and ruled upon by it or it arose as a natural result of the order of the Tribunal

Where neither of the two conditions was answered High Court refused to entertain the questions

Reference was answered in negative.

High Court declined the references.

Issue whether an admissible expense was actually incurred by the assessee during a particular assessment year was predominantly a question of fact

Such question could not be converted into one of law by simply saying that certain provisions of law had been ignored

Two consistent views of the forums below that the addition with respect to claimed expenses was unjustified did not give rise to a good reason requiring interference by the High Court under S.136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Appeal was dismissed in limine.

Question as to whether assessee purchased an open plot or some construction was also raised thereupon was predominantly a question of fact and could hardly be a subject-matter of appeal td High Court.

Complicated question of fact which could not be determined without recording evidence, appropriate forum for their determination would be Court of plenary jurisdiction and same could not be determined by High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.

Issue pertaining to service of jurisdictional notice shall become predominantly a question of law, which is, of course dependent on a finding of fact.

Substantial question of fact which would go to the root of the case and stood admitted by opposite party, needs not be proved.

Where resolution of a question requires detailed inquiry, the same cannot be undertaken in Constitutional jurisdiction.

When an inference is drawn as to a question of fact, that whether the inference is drawn from oral evidence or from documents, it is always a question of fact.

Every question of fact requires to be distinctly alleged and thereafter proved.

Question of fact which is not pleaded, cannot become capable of being proved through evidence.

Questions of fact to be decided on basis of proper proof on the file and not on the basis of submissions made at the bar

Proof follows pleadings, viz. a fact has to be first pleaded and then proof thereof has to be furnished

Where a fact was not pleaded, there could be no adjudication thereon.

[Proof].

Controversial points involved in the petitions related to question of fact which Courts below had thoroughly adjudicated upon and concurrently arrived at a correct conclusion

Petition for leave to appeal refused.

Argument relating to a question of fact not having been raised before High Court, Supreme Court declined to entertain same at leave to appeal stage

Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Courts below giving finding on relevant issue, on basis of evidence, which was one of fact and no question of law arising fur consideration

Leave refused.

Disputed question of fact-No findings, held, can be given on facts in respect of which neither issue framed nor evidence led.

- Art. 199-Question of fact-Writ jurisdiction-Finding whether petitioner indeed filed form for transfer of evacuee property or not Essentially a finding of fact-Such finding, held, could not be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court by filing a writ petition.[Finding of fact].

S. 13 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)Question of fact-Finding of fact recorded by tribunal having exclusive jurisdiction-Not ordinarily reviewed.-[Finding of fact].

Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Question of fact-Dispute involved in case of a factual nature necessitating leading of evidence with regard to rights of inheritance, determination of relevant propositus and his consequent heirs-Can only be properly thrashed out by a civil Court-Mutation by itself not intended to settle entitlement of parties-Petitioners having adequate remedy of filing civil suit for redress of their grievances, petition for leave to appeal dismissed.[Question of fact].

Appellant establishing his title to property and defendant failing to prove arty right to possession thereof-Appellant, held, clearly entitled to a decree for possession in circumstances of case.-[Pleadings-Possession].

Art. 185(3)-Question of fact-Contention raised for first time and involving inquiry into a question of fact-Held, cannot be taken into consideration by Supreme Court.-[Question of fact].

- Art. 185(3)-Question of fact-So-called sale deed relied upon by petitioner found to be fictitious and concocted as a matter of fact Deed hence not standing in way of inheritance of property by heirs of deceased-Such finding of fact, held, rightly not interfered with by High Court-Even otherwise contention having been raised for-first time before Supreme Court, held, could not be allowed to be raised at leave to appeal stage.

Labour Court's jurisdiction to go into-Labour Court, held, can go behind a dismissal order and see for itself whether on facts, and in circumstances of case, dismissal order was or was not justified both on merits as well as law.[Question of fact].

Concurrent finding on-All Courts below merely concurring in applying principle of marz-ul-maut to gift-Such concurrence, a mere matter of inference-Courts below, held, could not be said to have given concurrent findings of fact, in circumstances.

Contention that appellant having not been served ex parte proceeding could not be taken-Plea. held, involved a question of fact and could not be entertained in appeal.

Supreme Court not appropriate forum for determination High Court remanding case to Settlement authorities-Question of fact could be thrashed out before such authorities- Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched. I.

S. 66-Question of ascertainment of intention of partners as to treatment of particular property -Question of fact-Such question not referable under S. 66.

Question of fact-Cannot be canvassed in second appeal-Finding on question of fact, however, not binding when pertinent piece of evidence going to root of case disregarded.

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).

Question whether party participated in proceedings-Pure question of fact-High Court's finding on such question not shown to have not been based on proper appreciation of evidence-Finding, held, not open to exception.

High Court, in writ jurisdiction, not to decide disputed questions of fact-Finding of fact if based on no evidence or misreading o) evidence can be interfered with but nevertheless proper course is to remand case back to lower Tribunal for decision.

Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98-Question of fact High Court in writ jurisdiction would not interfere with finding on such questions.