Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Appeal No. 41/MR of 1978, decided on 19th August, 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 17‑10‑1977 in Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1976).
‑‑ S. 100‑Question of fact‑Second appeal‑Question of fact concurrently decided, held, cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless finding arrived at by Courts below erroneous or based on no evidence or misreading or non‑reading of evidence appears.‑[Question of fact‑Second appeal].
---S. 100‑Concurrent findings‑Second appeal ‑ Concurrent findings passed by Courts below based on proper consideration of oral evidence, held, cannot be vacated in second appeal even if High Court thinks inference drawn not fairly arising from evidence.‑[Second appeal].
Abdullah v. Muhammad Ali 1968 S C M R 711 and Sikandar v. Sultan Muhammad P L D 1974 S C 11 ref.
‑‑ S. 2(2) & O. XX, rr. 5 & 6‑Decree‑No doubt a Court can pass any decree which circumstances in a given case permit, but such decree must flow from pleadings and evidence of parties.‑[Decree].
‑‑ O. XX, rr. 5 & 6‑Decree‑A finding on a point alien to claim put forth by plaintiff regarding which no issue framed and parties not afforded any opportunity to adduce evidence, held, cannot be allowed to stand.
Muhammad Yunus Surakhvi, Advocate for Appellant.
Ch. Lal Hussain, Advocate for Respondent.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer