Finding of facts

This Court may vacate a finding of fact if it is found that a finding is based on inadmissible evidence or if it is the result of such misreading and non-reading of evidence that the finding stands vitiated — It is well settled that this Court will not set aside a finding merely on the ground that a different view of evidence is possible. These principles are more strict in appeals arising out of Tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction like the Election Tribunal. Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar & others 1995 SCR 1 (W)
Object of the provisions governing trial of election petition — The object of the provisions which govern the trial of an election petition which are peculiar in nature is to find out whether the will of the electorate has been conducted without illegalities and free from corrupt and illegal practices — The will of the electorate has the basic importance. Where two views of the evidence were possible and one view has been taken by the Tribunal and its judgment has been upheld by the High Court, this Court will not normally interfere in these findings. Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar & others 1995 SCR 1 (X)
It is well settled that finding of fact recorded by a public functionary is sacrosanct and can only be disturbed in cases of total absence of material in support of finding or there are grossly erroneous deduction not supported by record. Muhammad Bostan v. Tariq Mahmood and 3 others 1998 SCR 325 (A)
It is well settled that finding of fact cannot be based on conjectures and surmises — It must rather be based on admissible evidence. AJK Govt. & 4 others v. Spintex Limited 1998 SCR 167 (B)
Finding of fact based on cogent evidence and appreciated without any defect of mis-reading or non-reading cannot be disturbed. M. Gulzar Khan v. Begum Jan & 5 others 1998 SCR 63 (B)
Finding of fact recorded by a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction is ordinarily sacrosanct — Can be set aside in exceptional circumstances. Manzoor Ahmad Butt and 7 others v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and 7 others 1999 SCR 439 (A)
Finding of fact recorded by the trial Court and upheld by District Judge not interfered with. Boota and another v. Muhammad Sadiq and 4 others 2000 SCR 331 (C)
It is a settled proposition of law that findings of fact recorded by tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction, as the Custodian of Evacuee Property admittedly is, are sacrosanct and cannot be set aside in exercise of writ jurisdiction unless it is a case of no evidence or the conclusions are against evidence before it — It is equally well settled that the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction cannot adjudge sufficiency of evidence. M. Hanif Khan v. Altaf Khan Rathore 2000 SCR 464 (A)
Findings of facts, recorded by the tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction, were not assailable through a writ petition. M. Azad Baig and 6 others v. Custodian and 2 others 2000 SCR 142 (A)
Finding of fact based on an inquiry made by Custodian and affirmed by High Court cannot be set aside by this Court. M. Din & another v. Custodian of Evacuee Property 2002 SCR 93 (A)
The finding of facts could not be disturbed on artificial ground not recognised in law. Shabbir Ahmad & 11 others v. Fazal Dad & 3 others 2004 SCR 126 (B)
—Recorded after due appreciation of material and evidence attain the status of concurrent findings. Shahpal Anjum v. Mst. Samina Kousar 2019 SCR 226 (G)