Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Miscellaneous No. 222-C in Civil Revision No. 122/1) of 1986, decided on 17th February, 1986.
---S. 115--Revision--Appraisal of evidence--There could be no appraisal of evidence in revision and in case two opposite views were possible, it could not be insisted that one of them must be accepted in all events.
Muhammad Sharif v. Abdul Majid 1982 C L C 208 rel.
---S. 115--Revisional jurisdiction--Findings of fact arrived at by Court below, held, could not be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction.
Shah Ahmad Khan Baloch for Petitioner.
This Civil Revision calls in question the judgment and decree, dated 5-10-1985 of the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, whereby the petitioner/ defendant's appeal was dismissed,
2. It was a suit for recovery of Rs.10,830 allegedly pail by the respondent /plaintiff to the petitioner for sending him abroad. The petitioner denied having received the amount. The trial Court after concluding trial dismissed the suit holding that the evidence was contradictory. The learned Additional District Judge reversed the finding and instead decree the suit.
3. Learned counsel laid considerable stress upon the fact that some material contradictions had been made by the witnesses in their statements and that appraisal of evidence as made by the Trial Court had to be preferred. He placed reliance on Muhammad Sharif v. Abdul Majid 1982 C L C 208 to support this view. In Revision there could be no appraisal of evidence. If in a given case two opposite views were possible, it could not be insisted that one of them must be accepted in all events. The point involved was a question of fact. The respondent /plaintiff the amount. The witnesses Nawaz and Umar Hayat claimed to have been present when the amount was paid to the petitioner. However, the respondent /plaintiff in his own statement failed to affirm that the amount had been paid by him to the petitioner in presence of the P.Ws. Counsel emphasised this omission on his part in order to make it a contradiction. I doubt if this little omission can be of such an extreme effect. The plaintiff P.W. 3 did make mention of his witnesses Nawaz and Umar Hayat being amindars of his village. When they were described to be the witnesses. obviously the inference was that they had witnessed the passing off the amount Each one of them in their respective statements categorically claimed to have been present at the relevant time. That was enough. However, the defence plea was that the suit had been brought by the plaintiff /respondent at the instance of one Bashir Lohar. A suggestion made to that effect was traversed by the respondent. It was not shown what enmity after all the petitioner had with Bashir Lohar so that he could persuade the respondent to bring a vexatious suit against him.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the finding of fact cannot be disturbed in Revision and the same is dismissed in limine.
H . B . T . Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer