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. 1/Mirpur of 1978, decided on 2nd June, 1980.
(On Appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 10th November, 1975, in Civil Appeal No. 88 of 1974),
S. 100‑Second appeal‑Finding of fact‑Cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless evidence shown to have been misread or finding based on surmises and conjectures‑Erroneous finding of fact, however inexcusable, cannot be disturbed unless there exists some defect in procedure causing error in decision on merits‑Finding on a fact cannot be disturbed by High Court on ground that inferences drawn by Courts did not fairly arise out of evidence‑Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal simply because some other point could also be taken.‑[Finding of fact].
Nadir Shah v. Lal Shah P L D 1954 Lah. 447; Abdul Majid and others v. Khalil Ahmed P L D 1955 F C 38 and Pathana v. Mst. Wasal and another PLD1965SC134rel.&fol.
Muhammad Shafi and another v. Sher Ali 1970 S C M R 510 ref.
‑
Defendant not entering into witness‑box to oppose plaintiff Omission of defendant to examine himself as a witness and manifest nature of his possession‑‑Adverse inference will go against defendant.
Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh and another A I R 1927 P C 230 ref.
‑‑ Person alleging a fact to exist and proving same affirmatively and establishing a prima facie case‑Held, burden of proof shifts to other side.
S. 100‑Second appeal‑Concurrent finding of fact‑Reasoning to undo concurrent finding arrived at by subordinate Courts amounting to appraisal of evidence‑Held, such appraisal of evidence not per missible under S. 100,‑ [Finding of fact‑Evidence].
Raja Mohammad Siddique, Advocate for Appellant.
Ch. Muhammad Taj, 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