Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XLI,r.31,S.115

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XLI,r.31,S.115

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 115 & O. VII, R.2---Suit for recovery of amount---Suit having concurrently been decreed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court, defendant had filed revision against said concurrent s---Concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below were based on correct appreciation of evidence, which hardly called for interference of High Court in its revisional jurisdiction---Both Courts below had given exhaustive after due appraisal of evidence on record and after discussing all the pros and cons of the case---No legal defect was found in impugned s which were in harmony with the evidence on record---Conclusion of fact arrived at concurrently by the lower courts, was not open to challenge in revision, particularly when no specific misreading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out---Evidence on record had been properly appreciated and no prejudice seemed to have been caused to defendant---Appellate Court was alive to the legal situation and issue involved had been dealt with and decided in a careful manner---Appellate Court had given its finding on all the points of controversy---Revision against s of Courts below being bereft of merits, was dismissed, in circumstances. Haji Sheikh Habibullah and others v. Messrs Muhammad Amin and another PLD 1965 (W.P.) Kar. 445; Muhammad Sharif Khan v. Mst. Ismat Bi and 4 others PLD .1982 SC (AJ&K) 76 and Mst. Sabira Begum v. Hakim Muhammad Akhtar and another 1993 MLD 955 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XLI, R.31---Judgment of appellate Court---Giving issuewise findings by the Appellate Court, was not the requirement of law as under O.XLI, R.31, C.P.C. appellate court was to state the points for determination, give its decision thereon and reason for said decision. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Scope---Scope of S.115, C.P.C., being limited, High Court could not interfere in its revisional jurisdiction with the concurrent findings on a question of fact, rendered by the two courts below, unless it found misreading and non-reading of evidence therein. Naqeebullah Khattak for Petitioner. Hassan U.K.…

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