Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---------S. 115 ---Revisional jurisdiction---Scope---High Court in its revisional jurisdiction was not competent to undertake its own appraisal of evidence in the face of concurrent findings of two Courts below, in absence of any jurisdictional error or material irregularity---Revisional powers under S.115, C.P.C. were primarily intended for correcting errors made by the subordinate Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction---Ordinarily erroneous decisions of facts were not revisable except in cases where the decision was based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence or order sought to be revised was so perverse that grave miscarriage of justice was likely to result therefrom---Concurrent findings of facts delivered by two Courts below could neither be made subject of scrutiny by High Court nor reappraisal of evidence in the revisional jurisdiction was permissible under law. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---O. VII, R. 2---Suit for recovery of amount---Execution of 'Iqrar Nama' in question had not been specifically denied by defendant in his written statement---Unsuccessful -attempt had been made to show that defendant had not thumb-impressed the 'Iqrar Nama' and it was bogus and fictitious, but nothing had been produced to substantiate such allegations ---Iqrar Nama had been satisfactorily proved by Petition Writer and marginal witnesses---Onus to prove payment of outstanding amount was heavily placed on the defendant, which he failed to discharge---Mere assertion of defendant that he had discharged his liability and nothing was outstanding against him, without a positive attempt on his part to substantiate same, was of no consequence---Courts below had rightly decided lis and decreed suit in consonance with evidence on file, which had neither been misread nor non-read and had committed no illegality or irregularity, in absence of which, no interference at all, was called for in revisional jurisdiction of High Court under the law. PLD 1982 Pesh: 42; PLD 2004 Pesh. 1; 2004 MLD 57; 2004 CLC 643 and 2004 CLC 699 ref. Khawaja Nawaz Khan for Petitioner. Kaleem Arshad Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th…

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