| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1969 SLG 226 1969 SLD 226 1969 PLD 617 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 43-D of 1967, decision dated: 6th October 1969.(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 26th July 1965, in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 108 of 1961).
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J. AND SAJJAD AHMAD, J
M. H. Khandker, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (S. K. Sen, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by B. C. Panday, Attorney for Appellants. Md. Jane Alam, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (R. K. Banik, Advocate Supreme Court absent) instructed by Md. Be
Civil Appeal No. 43-D of 1967, decision dated: 6th October 1969.(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 26th July 1965, in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 108 of 1961).
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J. AND SAJJAD AHMAD, J
M. H. Khandker, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (S. K. Sen, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by B. C. Panday, Attorney for Appellants. Md. Jane Alam, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (R. K. Banik, Advocate Supreme Court absent) instructed by Md. Be
MADAN GOPAL AND 4 others
VS
MARAN BEPARI AND 3 OTHERS Nos. 24: Ex parte.
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------------S. 100 -Second appeal--Finding of fact reached by first appellate Court at variance with that of trial Court-Finding of appellate Court ordinarily prevails but it would not possess same value or sanctity of a concurrent finding-Finding of lower appellate Court not supported by evidence on record or appellate Court failing to take into account material evidence or not revealing logical basis for differing front finding of trial Court-Such finding can be interfered with in second appeal. The legal position does not admit of any doubt that a concurrent finding of fact reached by the lower Courts will not be disturbed by the High Court in a second appeal even if it disagrees with that finding on its own view of the evidence, although the concurrent finding of the lower Courts may appear to be grossly erroneous, unless, as laid down in subsection (c) of section 100, the error or defect discovered is of a substantial character pertaining to the procedure as provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force which may possibly have produced an error or defect in the decision of the case upon its merits. Interference would also be justified if the decision of the lower Courts is found to be contrary to law or some usage having the force of law or has failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having the force of law. If the finding of fact reached by the first appellate Court is at variance with that of the trial Court, the former will ordinarily prevail, although it would not possess the same value or sanctity as a concurrent finding. Such a finding by the lower appellate Court will be immune from interference in second appeal only if it is found to be substantiated by evidence on the record and is supported by logical reasoning, duly taking note of the reasons adduced by the first Court which have been disfavoured in the contrary finding. The finding being at variance with that of the trial Judge, the two will naturally come in for comparison for their comparative merits in the light of the facts of the case and the reasons on which the two different findings have respectively proceeded. If…
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