| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1976 SLG 191 1976 SLD 191 1976 PLD 767 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C.J., MUHAMMAD GUL AND MOHAMMAD AKRAM, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C.J., MUHAMMAD GUL AND MOHAMMAD AKRAM, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
SHAH NAWAZ AND another
VS
NAWAB KHAN
Law:
Section:
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Limiting words in leave granting order absent-Entire case reopened for examination by Supreme Court and evidence could be reviewed-Supreme Court, as a rule, gives due weight and consideration to opinion of Courts below and does not interfere with findings of fact reached by primary Courts or a High Court when reasonable as a whole and not arrived at by disregarding any provision of law or any accepted principle concerning appreciation of evidence yet it would do so where conclusions suffer from serious errors of law and fact.-[Practice and procedure-Supreme Court). In the absence of any limiting words in the leave granting order the entire case is reopened for the examination of the Supreme Court and a fortiori, it would be perfectly legitimate to review the evidence. If the intention had been to refuse leave on other points arising in the case, then leave granting order should have expressly stated so and should not have allowed the matter to rest in mere implication. As ultimate Court in the land, the Supreme Court, as a rule, should give due weight and consideration to the opinion of the Courts below and in particular to the opinion of the Court of first instance which had the advantage of hearing the parties' witnesses, and watching their demeanour. Normally, the Supreme Court does not interfere with the findings of fact reached by the primary Courts or a High Court when it is satisfied that the findings of the Courts below are on the whole reasonable and are not arrived at by disregarding any provision of law or any accepted principle concerning the appreciation of evidence. This would be notwithstanding that a different view might also be possible. In the instant case, however, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the conclusions reached by the High Court and the trial Court suffer from serious errors of law and fact. which unless set right are likely to result in miscarriage of justice. Hamid Ullah v. Khurshid Ahmad Khan P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 516 and Noora v. The State P L D 1973 S C 469 ref. (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872)- ----S. 112-Muhammadan Law-Paternity,…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492