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 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-81 of 1981. decided on 23rd August 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 4 -2-1981 of the Sind High Court at Karachi in R. A. No. 72 of 1980).
S. 100-Second appeal-Appreciation of evidence-Findings of fact recorded by first appellate Court-Final and binding and cannot be interfered with merely on basis of same being based on an incorrect appreciation of evidence.-[Findings of fact-Evidence].
Syed Anwar Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq. Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 23rd August 1981.
-The respondent No. 1 filed a suit against the petitioners and his father Mohammad Hasan (respondent No. 2) praying for a permanent injunction to restrain them from selling or alienating a Quarter situate in Sector 37-A, Landi Colony, Karachi. The pertinent issue which arose on the pleadings of the parties was Issue No. 4 which is in the following terms :-
"Has the quarter. in dispute been sold out to the respondent No. 2 (petitioner No 1 herein) by the plaintiff (Respondent No. 1 herein) for Rs.7,000 and documents were duly executed by the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) to defendant No. 2 (petitioner No. 1 herein). If so, what was its effect "
The learned 1st Additional District Judge at Karachi on appeal (the decision of the suit being in favour of the petitioners) however held this issue against the petitioners finding that it was not proved that the quarter in dispute had, indeed, been sold to the defendant No. 2 (Petitioner No. 1 herein) or that the documents in this behalf were duly executed by the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) in favour of defendant No. 2 (petitioner No. 1 herein). The petitioners therefore filed a revision before the Sind High Court at Karachi but the same was dismissed. Hence this petition.
He have heard Mr. Anwar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition. His main contention was that the finding recorded on Issue No. 4 was not "quite according to the correct appreciation of the record". In other words, the petitioners were criticizing the appreciation of evidence made by the learned Additional District Judge. Since, however, findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court are final A and binding and the same cannot be interfered with merely on the basis that the name are based on an incorrect appreciation of the evidence the High Court was could not have interfered with the said findings and by the some token this Court would refrain from going into this aspect of the matter.
The result is that this petition must fail and is dismissed hereby.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer