ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court declared that the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is discretionary with the objects to foster justice in aid of justice and not to perpetuate injustice.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, and comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali in a rent case. All the forums below decided in favour of the respondent (landlord).
The judgment said that if it is found that substantial justice has been done between the parties, then this discretion may not be exercised. It is also well settled exposition and tenet of law that the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction should keep away from interfering in the findings of facts recorded by the courts below concurrently after right and proper appraisal of evidence and cannot substitute and supplement its own findings.
By and large, it is an established legal principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be interfered with unless there is a patent illegality, misreading or non-consideration of material evidence, or an error of law floating on the surface of the record.
The judgment further said that the superior courts exercise restraint and are slow to disturb concurrent findings unless exceptional circumstances, illegality, or a jurisdictional error are demonstrated.
Where glaring errors, non-reading or misreading of evidence, or any legal and jurisdictional issues arise, the stumbling block of the doctrine of concurrent findings cannot shield flawed or erroneous decisions.
The Court also said it is not within the domain or function of the Appellate Court and/or the High Court in writ jurisdiction to re-weigh or re-interpret the evidence, but they can examine whether the impugned judgment or order attains the benchmark of an unflawed judgment; and whether it is in consonance with the law and evidence and free from unjust and unfair errors apparent on the face of record.
The judgment noted that the counsel for the petitioner (tenant) failed to point out any lawful justification for the interference in the concurrent findings recorded by the appellate court and affirmed by the High Court which seem to be strictly in accordance with law. On the contrary, the impugned judgment divulges that all relevant factors and grounds raised were properly considered and answered by the High Court.
The judgment said that the apex court could not go behind concurrent findings of fact unless it can be shown that the finding is on the face of it against the evidence or so patently improbable, or perverse that to accept it could amount to perpetuating a grave miscarriage of justice or if there has been any misapplication of the principle relating to appreciation of evidence or finally, if the finding could be demonstrated to be physically impossible or against the law.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026