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 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 488 of 1986, decided on 25th June, 1986.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22‑4‑1986, passed in Writ Petition No. 1593 of 1986).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence‑ Petitioner seeking re‑appraisal of evidence which had already been re‑appraised by High Court in writ jurisdiction‑‑Supreme Court declined to go through evidence all over again merely to reverse findings of fact recorded by two Courts below‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) a 199‑‑Writ jurisdiction‑‑High Court reconsidering all evidence on record and upholding order of Election Tribunal‑‑Contentions raised mainly being a prayer for re‑appraisal of evidence on record which had already been re‑appraised by a Division Bench of High Court although High Court was not required to do so in view of facts and circumstances of case‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence merely to reverse findings of fact recorded by two Courts below, refused‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Advocate Supreme Court with Riyasat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 25th June, 1956.
Haji Muhammad Sharif petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 22‑4‑1986, dismissing his writ petition against the order of the Election Tribunal, relating to election to a seat in the Local Government Elections.
2. Facts are that Muhammad Sharif petitioner, Sh. Muhammad Anwar Saeed respondents Nos. 1 and 3 others, contested the election from Electoral Unit No. 70‑LMC, held on 28‑9‑1983. Haji Muhammad Sharif petitioner secured the highest number of votes, defeating Sh. Muhammad Anwar Saeed respondent No. 1 by 283 votes. The latter filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal against Haji Muhammad Sharif petitioner, alleging certain illegalities and irregularities. A number of witnesses were produced by the respondent in support of the said allegations and the Election Tribunal accepted the election petition vide order, dated 5‑4‑1986.
Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, which re‑considered all the evidence on the record and upheld the order of the Election Tribunal.
3. We have heard the petitioner's counsel as well as the learned counsel for the respondent‑caveator at great length. No question of law which has not already been decided by this Court was raised by the petitioner's counsel. The contentions raised by him mainly amounted to a prayer for reappraisal of evidence on the record, which has already been reappraised by a Division Bench of the High Court although it (in the High Court) was not required to do so in view of the facts and circumstances of this case. We do not, therefore, consider it proper to go through the evidence all over again merely to reverse findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below.
The petition is consequently dismissed.
M.I. Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer