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. 162 of 1980, decided on 25th May, 1985.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Grant of‑‑Concurrent finding on question of fact‑‑Lower Courts having carefully considered evidence and reached correct conclusion, no interference warranted‑‑Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.
Haji Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 25th May, 1985.
‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 4‑12‑1979, dismissing their civil revision.
2. The petitioners had filed a suit for possession of the house which they claimed to have purchased through a sale‑deed dated 5‑8‑1947. Seven issues were framed. Out of these the main issue (i.e Issue No. 5) reads as follows:‑‑
"(5) Whether the sale‑deed, dated 5‑8‑1947 is fictitious, fraudulent and forged, and if so, what effect, O.P.D. "
It is evident that this issue relates to, is a question of fact and all the three Courts below have decided against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the learned Court, below have ignored material evidence on the record.
4. We have carefully considered this contention but are of tire view that the learned Courts below have carefully considered the evidence referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner and reached a correct conclusion. The matter, therefore does not warrant interference' by this Court.
5. The petition is consequently dismissed as having no merit.
M.I. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer