Find a Lawyer

AMJAD SHARIF QAZI AND OTHERS versus SALIM ULLAH FARIDI

The trial court and the appellate court had formally ruled in the second appeal before the High Court scope suit for the specific performance of the section 100 Special Relief Act (of 1877), however, in favor of the defendants but In its exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court, the section 100 CPC re-evaluated the evidence and set aside the findings of the facts recorded by the two courts below the justification. The finding of concurrence of fact cannot be ignored and speculated on or because the other view was even plaintiff \ 's evidence was denied on the basis of mere contradictions, which were argued by the trial court and the appellate court. No reference is made to using the jurisdiction under section 100 CPC to interfere in finding the facts recorded by the two courts below, unless such findings are obtained. The following courts either reached the record by misrepresenting the evidence on the record or ignoring the documents on the record or by the crooked definition of evidence. The High Court did not identify any wrong reading or reading of the evidence or any other criteria. , So that it can be verified by re-examining the evidence in the second appeal. The findings of fact filed by the courts below, by the High Courts, are not due to any misrepresentation of any kind of evidence or any evidence to be recorded on the documents or thereby caused by any error. Was. The following two courts were perverse or arbitrary searches recorded by the trial court which were affirmed by the Appellate Court. online advocate from Ali Chak lawyer