Concurrent findings

  1. Concurrent findings — All the Courts below gave concurrent findings evidence had received due and full consideration by the subordinate Courts — the findings cannot be disturbed. Ashiq Hussain Shah & other    v. Mst. Fazal Begum & others 1994 SCR 263 (A
  2. Findings concurrently recorded by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court and confirmed by the High Court cannot be disturbed. Farooq Bibi  v. A. Khaliq & others 1998 SCR 244 (D)
  3. 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)
  4. When a question of fact concurrently decided by the Courts below upheld by the High Court then it is not proper for this Court to substitute its opinion against the opinion of the Courts below. Muhammad Din v. Muhammad Ashraf & 6 others 2005 SCR 225 (A)
  5. Two Courts below recorded concurrent findings acquitting the accused which raise double presumption of innocence in their favour — The Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction can interfere only when the interpretation of law or the Constitution is involved or miscarriage of justice done by any Court or where illegal or irregular practice is done or adapted. Muhammad Ashfaq v. Muhammad Ashiq & 5 others 2005 SCR 341 (A)
  6. Second appeal — The High Court in second appeal shall not interfere in concurrent finding of fact unless lower Courts have misread the evidence or the same was perverse — Generally concurrent findings on question of fact conclusive — Under section 100 C.P.C. concurrent finding of fact is immune from interference. Sardar Ali & 2 others v.  Saghir Ahmed 2006 SCR 414 (A)
  7. Concurrent finding cannot be disturbed until and unless it is proved that the same is the result of mis-reading or non-reading of some important evidence. Munshi Khan & another v. Shah Muhammad & others 2006 SCR 94 (A)
  8. The Court seldom interferes in the concurrently concluded findings of Courts below if no misreading or non-reading of documentary or oral evidence having bearing on the facts of case is brought in the notice of the Court. Mst. Sharifa Begum v. Ali Afsar Khan 2006 SCR 19 (B)
  9. No misreading or non-reading of evidence has been committed by the lower Court — Where there is concurrent finding on the question of fact, then this Court shall not embark upon fresh appreciation of evidence in second appeal even if erroneous view has been drawn by both the lower Courts. Muhammad Arif  v. Muhammad Boota & 4 others 2007 SCR 363 (C)
  10. Concurrent finding on the question of fact shall not be disturbed unless the same is based on some misreading or non-reading of evidence. M. Latif  Khan v. Muhammad Hanif  2007 SCR 125 (D)
  11. There is concurrent finding of fact — No misreading or non-reading of evidence was found to have been committed. Mst. Dr. Naseem Firdous v. Mst. Anwar Bi & 7 others 2007 SCR 310 (D)
  12. This Court does not interfere or disturb concurrently recorded findings by the Courts below — Question of facts concurrently decided and upheld by the High Court cannot be set aside by this Court even if a different view may be possible. M. Akram v. G. Murtaza 2008 SCR 184 (A) PLD 1983 SC(AJ&K)56, PLJ 1996 SC(AJ&K)179,1998 SCR 244,2003 SCR 28 and 2004 SCR 510 rel.
  13. Discretion exercised by the Courts below cannot be disturbed unless found perverse, capricious or arbitray — This Court while looking into a case of concurrent findings by the two Courts below has two avoid observations which can possibly influence the trial Court. Kabul Hussain v.  Shaukat Hussain & 3 others 2010 SCR 290 (B)
  14. Supreme Court cannot dispute the concurrently recorded findings unless it comes to the conclusion that the order recorded by two Court below is either whimsical or capricious or based on facts not supported by the record of the case. Arshad Mahmood v. The State & another 2010 SCR 75 (H)
  15. The factual points which are agitated have been concurrently resolved by Courts below — Held: This Court has always declined to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the subordinate Courts — This principle has consistently been followed. Safdar Ali Khan v. Azad Govt. & 2 others 2010 SCR 250 (F) 1998 SCR 76 & 1995 SCR 151 rel.
  16. Concurrent findings on question of facts — It is celebrated principle of law that the concurrent findings on question of facts normally are not interfered with unless very strong compelling legal reasons are brought on record. Habibullah v. Ghulam Rasool 2011 SCR 501 (B)
  17. According to the statutory provisions as well as the principle of administration of justice, the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be disturbed by this Court, unless there is violation of statutory provisions of law or gross misreading and non reading of the evidence. Abdul Ghafoor v. Kiran Mukhtar Awan & another 2014 SCR 1494 (A)
  18. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts below and affirmed by the High Court are immune from interference by this Court. Lal Begum v. Qayyum Khan 2016 SCR 107 (A)
  19. Both the Courts below have concurred with the matter while recording the strong reasons which is not open for interference by this Court as the petitioners failed to point out any illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below. Kh.  Shafique v. Mahmooda Bibi 2016 SCR 493 (B)
  20. The concurrent findings have been recorded by the Courts below —Supreme Court is always reluctant to substitute the findings which have been concurrently recorded by the Courts below, except there appears any misreading or non-reading of the evidence. Azamat Hussain Kayani & 2 others v. Ansa Bibi & 4 others 2016 SCR 496 (A) 2004 SCR 510 & 2006 SCR 19 rel.
  21. Three Courts below have dilated upon the matter in a comprehensive manner, and attended the issues wisely and recorded the findings while assigning cogent reasons—Held: Supreme Court does not find any misreading or non-reading of evidence which is pre-requisite for interference with the concurrent findings. Muhammad Sadiq v. Muhammad Rafique & 19 others 2016 SCR 525 (C) 2010 SCR 250 & 1998 SCR 76 rel.
  22. Contention that there are concurrent findings of the Courts below which cannot be disturbed —Held: it is no hard and fast rule. The concurrent findings can be reversed if any misreading or non-reading of evidence appears on the face of record. Muhammad Jamroze v. Raja Muhammad Sabir & another 2016 SCR 1150 (C) PLD 2002 SC 1048 rel.
  23.  Concurrent findings of the two Courts below—held: findings recorded by the District Judge and affirmed by the High Court are immune from interference by this Court. Shafquat Hayyat & 3 others v. Muhammad Razzaq & another 2016 SCR 1334 (B)
  24. The findings concurrently recorded by the Courts below cannot be disturbed until and unless a case of non-reading or misreading of evidence is made out or gross illegality is shown to have been committed while appreciating evidence. M. Siddique Khan v. Zareen Khan 2016 SCR 1712 (G) 
  25. —The contention of the respondents that concurrent findings of facts ordinarily are not disturbed by this Court until and unless the same suffer from misreading or non-reading is pointed out, Held: correct, but when the findings of the Courts below are not based on proper appreciation of the record and are perverse, the interference is justified. Mst. Chanaan Bibi & others v. Muhammad Shapal & others 2017 SCR 1072 (B)
  26. —cannot be disturbed—unless gross misreading or non-reading of evidence—or violation of statutory provisions is pointed out—it is celebrated principle of law that concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be disturbed unless some gross misreading or non-reading of the evidence or violation of statutory provisions of law is pointed out. Leave cannot be granted as matter of routine. Manzoor Hussain Shah & others v. Syed Akbar Shah 2017 SCR 990 2014 SCR 1494 rel.
  27. —cannot be disturbed—unless misreading or non-reading—or gross illegality pointed out—There are concurrent finding s recorded by the courts below and it is settled principle of law that the findings of facts concurrently recorded by the Courts below cannot be disturbed until and unless a case of non-reading or misreading of evidence is made out or gross illegality is shown to have been committed while appreciating evidence, whereas, no such eventuality is available in the case in hand. Saqib Munir & another v. Uzma Waheed  2017 SCR 972 (A)
  28. —not to be disturbed—unless misreading or non-reading of evidence—the defendant-appellant could not succeed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence, therefore, the findings of the facts concurrently recorded by the Courts below cannot be disturbed or interfered with merely on the strength of the argument which does not find support from the law or record. Kamal Hussain v. Muhammad Shabir& others 2017 SCR 236 (B)
  29. —Can be recalled— It is now settled that the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below are open to attack and can be recalled if the same are based on misreading or non-reading of evidence. Auragzeb & 4 others v. Muhammad Ayub & another 2017 SCR 464 (A)  2003 SCR 128 & Sadiq Hussain Shah & others vs. Syeda Gudo Fatima & others (Civil appeal No. 24 of 2010 decided on 23-04-2015) rel.
  30. —cannot be disturbed by Supreme Court—when appears no misreading and non-reading of evidence. Ch. Muhammad Shoukat & others v. Custodian of Evacuee Property & others 2017 SCR 1388 (I)     
  31. — It is settled law that the concurrent findings cannot be interfered with unless the same are found capricious, against law and record or based on misreading and non-reading of evidence. Ch. Maqbool Ahmed  & other v. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal  2017 SCR 1653 (G)
  32. — where the concurrent findings are based on misreading or non-reading of the evidence or capricious, perverse and against law, then such findings are not sacrosanct and proper conclusion from the available record and the evidence can be drawn by the High Court in second appeal. Nazir Hussain Shah & others v. Muhammad Saeed Shah 2017 SCR 1593 (C)
  33. —concurrent findings of facts in criminal cases—recorded without appreciation of evidence—are not sacrosanct—can validly be set aside—argument: concurrent findings of facts, in criminal cases cannot be disturbed in appeal—So for as the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that concurrent findings of facts, arrived at by the Courts below in the criminal cases, cannot be disturbed in appeal is concerned, it may be observed that the findings recorded without appreciation of evidence and the material brought on the record , are not sacrosanct and the Court while making appraisal of the evidence and the record, can valid set aside the same. Argument repelled. Muhammad Javed vs Muhammad Khalid & others 2018 SCR 642 (B)
  34. –it  is  recognized  principle  of  law  that  the  concurrent findings if based on correct appreciation of evidence, this Court stay aside to interfere with the same, however, if the position is otherwise, this Court always intervene in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. Yasmin Ashraf &others vs Abdul Rasheed Garesta &others 2018 SCR 661 (U) 2014 SCR 735 rel
  35. —It  is  well  settled  law  and  practice  of  this  Court  that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be disturbed unless some misreading and non-reading of the record is noticed. Hanif Khan vs Muhammad Hanif Khan&others 2018 SCR 1303 (C)
  36. —The concurrent findings of facts cannot be disturbed by this Court until and unless it is found that the same are erroneous, perverse and capricious. Muhammad Khan v. Muhammad Khaliq & others 2019 SCR 339 (A)
  37. —Concurrently recorded judgments on question of facts do not call for interference. Muhammad Muneer v. Naveeda Khalid 2019 SCR 394 (A)
  38. — concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of relevant law and evidence— interference by Supreme Court is not warranted under law. Muhammad Farooq Versus Beenish & another 2021 SCR 221 (C)
  39. — The findings of facts, concurrently recorded by the Courts below cannot be disturbed until and unless a case of non-reading or misreading of evidence is made out or gross illegality is shown to have been committed. Farhan Farooq versus Salma Mehmood 2021 SCR 310 (B) 2019 SCR 394 & 2017 SCR 236 rel.
  40. —Concurrent findings of facts cannot be disturbed by Supreme Court until and unless these are found erroneous, perverse or capricious. Public Works Department & 5 others versus Aurangzeb & another 2021 SCR 336 (C) 1997 SCR 226 & 2019 SCR 339 rel.
  41. — Supreme Court always reluctant to substitute the findings which have been concurrently recorded by the Courts below except where any misreading or non-reading of evidence appears. Mansha Hussain Versus Muhammad Afzal & 5 others 2021 SCR 392 (A) 2016 SCR 496 ref.
  42. — concurrent findings of facts cannot be disturbed by Supreme Court until and unless the same are found erroneous, perverse and capricious. Rafique Ahmed Chughtai & 2 others Versus Collector Land Acquisition & 33 others 2021 SCR 447 (A) 2017 SCR 972 ref.
  43. — Concurrent findings of facts are not usually disturbed by Supreme Court even if a different view is possible. Mehmood-ul Hassan Khan versus Rehana & 14 others -2021 SCR 476 (A)
  44. —The concurrent findings of the facts recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with by this Court unless some gross illegality, misreading, non-reading of evidence or some substantial injustice has been pointed out. Waheeda Bashir versus Muhammad Munsif Khan 2021 SCR 586 (F)
  45. —Concurrent findings based on pure appreciation of law are immune from interference by Supreme Court. Muhammad Tanvir Versus Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan 10 others 2021 SCR 672 (F) 
  46. —Findings based on pure appreciation of  evidence—Supreme Court does not enter into appraisement of evidence, unless the findings are vitiated by an error of law or based on error of record– Supreme Court only interfere when the High Court has arrived at a finding of fact in disregard of Judicial process, principle of natural justice or acted in violation of mandatory provisions of law or procedure resulting to serious miscarriage of justice. Ayaz Danish Versus Suriya Bibi 2021 SCR 688 (A) 2005 SCR 225 Ref
  47. —Respondent got favourable findings from both the Courts below—the concurrent findings on facts of Court below are based on correct appreciation of evidence—no misreading or non-reading is surfaced—no error of law or principle of law pointed out to interfere with. Muhammad Sagheer Versus  Aneesha Shabir & another 2021 SCR 725 (D&E) 
  48. — Concurrent findings of facts affirmed by the High Court are immune from interference by Supreme Court—it is enjoined upon the appellant to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence. Aftab Ali v. District Judge Bhimber &others 2022 SCR 66 (B)
  49. —Both the appellate Courts have concurrently upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court—appellant failed to point out any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgments–hence interference by Supreme Court is not warranted. Khizar Hayat v. Muhammad Sagheer & others 2022 SCR 104 (B)
  50. —Supreme Court is always reluctant to substitute the findings concurrently recorded by the courts below, except there appears misreading or nonreading of evidence. Mst. Rehana Faizullah v. & others v. Ifat Amanullah & others 2022 SCR 108 (A)  2005 SCR 225 & 2016 SCR 496 ref
  51. —Concurrent findings of facts based on pure appreciation of evidence—Supreme Court normally does not enter into appraisal of evidence, unless the findings are found vitiated by an error of law or procedure or based on error of record— Supreme Court would interfere when the High Court has arrived at a finding of facts disregard of Judicial process, principle of natural justice or acted in violation of mandatory provisions of law or procedure resulting into serious miscarriage of justice. Rafique v.WAPDA & others 2022 SCR 298 (B) 2005 SCR 225 & 2017 SCR 236 ref
  52. — it is usual practice of this Court not to interfere with concurrent findings, however, in special circumstances, the Supreme Court can interfere where it is found that the concurrent findings are perverse and not based on sound reasoning or where Courts below have illogically arrived at the findings and where law involved in the matter has wrongly been interpreted. Muhammad Khaliq v Fatima Bi & others 2022 SCR 351 (G)
  53. —Ordinarily the 2nd  appellate Court, would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the 1st  appellate Court—2nd  appellate Court would overturn such findings  only in exceptional cases, if it was established with absolute clearness that some oversight or error resulting in to miscarriage of justice was apparent—it must be demonstrated that the judgments of both the Courts below were clearly wrong— concurrent findings of  fact cannot be disturbed until and unless it is found that the same are erroneous, perverse and capricious. Muhammad Zaman Tabassum v. Mehmood Ahmed Butt 2022 SCR 416 (F & G) 2019 SCR 339, 2005 SCR 225 & 2017 SCR 236 ref
  54. —Disturbance of —concurrent findings cannot be disturbed by Supreme Court unless strong compelling reasons are brought on record. Muhammad Faryad v. Zahoor Ahmed & others  2022 SCR 1123 (E) 2019 SCR 339 rel.
  55. —Scope of—concurrent findings of facts based on pure appreciation of evidence, unless even if these were to take a different view on the evidence, this Court normally does not enter into appraisement of evidence, unless the Court is vitiated by error of law or procedure or based on error of record. This Court would interfere when the High Court has arrived at a finding of fact in disregard of judicial process, principle of natural justice or has acted in violation of mandatory provision of law or procedure resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. Tahir Tariq v. Humble Bin Tahir & others  2022 SCR 1146 (D) 2005 SCR 225 & 2017 SCR 236 rel.
  56. — It is practically a settled law that concurrent findings of facts recorded by the trial Court and the first appellate Court cannot be disturbed by the High Court howsoever erroneous they may be. Haq Nawaz &others v. Muhammad Akbar & others 2022 SCR 1441 (B) 1998 SCR 235, 2016 SCR 496, 2017 SCR 236 and 2018 SCR 1303 rel.
  57. — It is settled law that concurrent findings of facts recorded by the trial Court and the first appellate Court cannot be disturbed by the High Court, howsoever, erroneous they may be. Shahnawaz & others v. Muhammad Mohmand & others 2022 SCR 1397 (C)  2016 SCR 496, 2017 SCR 235 & 2018 SCR 1303 rel.
  58. —It is settled principle of law that concurrent findings can only the reversed if any misreading or nonreading of evidence appears on face of record. Tajmal Hussain Mir v. Sughufta Saeed & others 2022 SCR 1636 (A&B) 1998 SCR 235 ref.
  59. — according to the settled principle of law the learned High Court while deciding the second appeal shall not interfere with concurrent findings of facts recorded by the lower Courts unless the lower Courts while recording the findings on the question of facts have either misread the evidence or ignored any material piece of evidence available on record or the same was perverse. Abdul Waheed Khan v. Aurangzeb Khan & others 2023 SCR 282 (B) 1995 SCR 151, 2006 SCR 414 & 2011 SCR 501 ref.
  60. — concurrent findings of facts cannot be disturbed unless mis-reading and non-reading or violation of law pointed out — Held: the concurrent findings of facts based on pure appreciation of the record and evidence, cannot be disturbed by this Court. The appellants have failed to make out the case of mis-reading or nonreading of the evidence or any violation of law. Zaffar Younas & others v. Noor Ahmed Khan & others 2023 SCR 491 (G)
  61. — it is well settled principle of law that concurrent findings of facts recorded by the trial Court and the first appellate Court cannot be disturbed by the Supreme Court, particularly so, when the same are affirmed by the High Court until and unless gross misreading and non-reading of the record is pointed out. Raja Khalid Khan & another v. Raja Mahmood Iqbal & others 2023 SCR 261 (B) 2016 SCR 496, 2004 SCR 510, 2006 SCR 19 Ref.
  62. — law is well settled that no second appeal is competent against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below until and unless any misreading or non-reading of evidence or any violation of law is pointed out. Qazi Muhammad Ishaque v. Sain Muhammad (deceased) represented by legal heirs & others 2023 SCR 216 (D&F)
  63. — concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be disturbed until and unless any misreading or non-reading of evidence is pointed out. WAPDA versus Muhammad Meharban & others 2023 SCR 631 (C)
  64. — Courts below recorded concurrent findings on the question of facts … no misreading and non-reading of evidence — according to celebrated principle of law, concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below on the question of facts cannot be disturbed — even if a different view might be possible, the concurrent findings cannot be disturbed. Muhammad Nazir & others versus Syed Aziz ul Hassan & others 2023 SCR 943 (A) 1998 SCR 235,2004 SCR 510 ref.
  65. — Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the 1st & 2nd appellate Courts, cannot be disturbed by Supreme Court unless misreading or non-reading of record or evidence is substantiated. Muhammad Asheer Khan & another vs Manzoor Hussain & others 2024 SCR 279 (D) 2016 SCR 496 & 2004 SCR 510 ref.
error: Content is protected !!