Concurrent findings of facts

  1. Concurrent findings of fact — By the Courts below and also High Court — Cannot be interfered by the Supreme Court unless there is misreading or non-reading of evidence. Muhammad Sultan v. Mst. Hanifa Begum 1992 SCR 87 (C)
  2. Concurrent finding of fact by trial Court and the High Court — Cannot be interfered with. Muhammad Suleman  v. Mst. Razia Bibi 1992 SCR 265 (C)
  3. Even if a different conclusion from the one reached by the Courts below is possible, the High Court is not legally competent to disturb the findings until and unless a case of non-reading or misreading of evidence is made out or a gross illegality is shown to have been committed while appreciating evidence of a witness. Adalat Khan v.  Fazal Hussain & another 1995 SCR 151 (B)
  4. Concurrent findings of fact — This Court normally does not interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court, unless of course, it is shown that there was a mis-reading or non-reading of the evidence.  Javed Iqbal v. Mst. Kalsoom Bi 1996 SCR 33 (A)
  5. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and the first appellate Court cannot be disturbed by the High Court, howsoever erroneous that may be. Fazal karim v. Abdul Manaf and another 1997 SCR 226 (A)
  6. Concurrent finding of facts cannot be interfered with unless some gross illegality, mis-reading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out. Muneer Hussain Shah and 4 others  v. Kazim Hussain Shah & 15 others 1998 SCR 76 (A)
  7. Finding concurrently recorded by trial Court, the first appellate Court and the High Court same cannot be set aside. Tanveer H. Shah v. Maqbool Begum and 23 others 1999 SCR 495 (B)
  8. Adverse possession — Concurrent findings of fact — Held: Supreme Court normally does not interfere with unless there be a mis-reading or non-reading of document. Muhammad Hanif and 16 others v. Muhammad Latif Khan and 10 others 2000 SCR 322 (C)
  9. Concurrent findings of fact are open to attack if the same are not supported by any evidence or otherwise are un-reasonable or perverse. Akhtar Khan v. Sarwar Khan 2003 SCR 128 (C)
  10. It is a case of concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below and confirmed by the High Court — Even if a different opinion is possible, this Court is not entitled to interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. Bibi Jan  v. Qutab Din  2003 SCR 28 (A)
  11. The question of fact concurrently decided and upheld by High Court cannot be set aside by this Court even if a different view might be possible. Farooq Ahmad v. Munshi Khan & 5 others 2004 SCR 510 (B) 2003 SCR 28, 2004 YLR 1663 rel.
  12. Concurrent findings of facts are open to attack and can be recalled if the same are not supported by any evidence or otherwise or unreasonable or perverse. M. Riaz v. M. Riyasat 2008 SCR 308 (A)
  13. There are concurrent findings of two Courts below — The Supreme Court normally does not interfere in the  concurrent findings of facts based on evidence. Muhammad Ismail and another v. State & another 2008 SCR 584 (B) 2004 SCR 239 rel.
  14. The concurrent findings of facts are sacrosanct if the case is of no evidence — In present case plaintiffs-appellants proved their case from cogent evidence and misreading and non-reading of evidence on part of trial Court as well as appellate Courts is evident — Argument repelled. Muhammad Rasheed and another v. Muhammad Bashir and another 2009 SCR 237 (C)  
error: Content is protected !!