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 Revision Petition No. 47‑R of 1980, in C. P. No. 33 of 1975, decided on 5th November, 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 1ti‑3‑80 of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in C. P. S. L. A. 33/75).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--
‑‑ S. 100‑Second appeal ‑ Finding of fact recorded by District Judge‑Not to be interfered with n second appeal‑Reappraisal of evidence, held, not possible in second appeal.‑[Evidence].
Syed Iftikhar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood Akhtar Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Abdul Majid Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (both absent) for Respondents 1 to 3.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.
Date of hearing: 5th November, 1980.
‑This is a petition for review of this Court's order dated 16‑3‑1980.
We have heard Syed Iftikhar Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, who has submitted that the finding of fact given by the learned District Judge to the effect that the signatures of Sadiq Ali Shah deceased the alleged donor‑signed although in English‑were his signatures was based on the oral testimony of two witnesses but the learned District Judge had ignored a large number of documents which rebutted this assumption. In this situation, the High Court should not have accepted this finding but should itself have gone further into the matter. Furthermore, there was no concurrent finding by the trial Court and the District Judge on this aspect as the High Court appears to think but only that of the District Judge. The order of the High Court, therefore, was defective and should have been interfered with by this Court. The failure to do so require review.
It is obvious that the ground urged above for seeking review of this Court's order is not a ground on which review can be granted. No error in the order of this Court, which is patent on the record has been pointed out and it is only the approach followed by this Court that has been criticised.
It may, however, be observed that under the law, the final Court of fact is the appellate Court, namely, the District Judge and it is the finding recorded by him which cannot be interfered with in second appeal. Conse quently, the High Court rightly held that the matter was concluded by a finding of fact and as the petitioner wanted a re‑appraisal of the evidence, this was not possible in second appeal. No interference was called for in this order. Hence by not interfering with it no error was committed.
This petition has no force 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