Concurrent Findings

Concurrent Findings- The learned Single Judge of the High Court Division erred in law in setting aside the judgment and decrees of the courts below based on concurrent findings of fact and thereby exceeded the revisional jurisdiction under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure which resulted in an error in the deci sion causing failure of justice and in such view of the matter the findings and decisions as arrived at by the High Court Division can not be sustained in law and the same are liable to be set aside. Aroti Rani Paul vs Sudarshan Kumar Paul (Syed J. R. Mudassir Husain J)(Civil) 2ADC 23 The High Court Division has exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the con- current finding of facts arrived at by the courts below after due consideration of the evidence on record. Sheikh Abdur Rashid vs. Alhaj Akram Hossain (Md. Fazlul Hauge J) (Civil)2ADC 139 Since the plaintiffs failed to prove their case, they are not entitled to a decree. Therefore, the High Court Division was not justified in decreeing the suit setting aside the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below. Arshad Hossain Haider and others. -Vs. Suza Uddoula and others. (Civil) 18 ALR (AD) 34-37 File the suit seeking the relief that alleged deed of gift is false, fraudulent and fabricated. ...(2) That the settled principle of law is that the concurrent findings of fact arriving at by the courts below, however erro- neous, they may be, is binding upon the High court Division in its revisional jurisdiction and as such the judgment of the High Court Division sought to be appealed is not sustainable in law, that the courts below on appreciation of the evidence on record held that the story of permissive possession has not been proved by the defendants rather it was found by the courts below that the plain- tiff is in possession of the suit land on the strength of registered deed of pur- chase dated February 25,1947 and this being a finding of fact is binding upon the High Court Division. Shushil Chandra Nath vs. Shanjib Kanti Nath(Md. Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 5ADC 21 Question of the legality of a kabla. On a perusal of the High Court Judgment we find that the said Division was completely oblivious of the fact, that with the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the trial Court as well as by the court of appeal below which is the final court of facts by threadbare discus sions of the evidence of P.Ws and perus- al of pleadings cannot be interfered with by the High Court Division unless the judgment is corum-non-judice, per- verse. Md. Abdul Jalil vs Mosammat Shefali Begum (M. A. Aziz J)(Civil) 3ADC 484 Interference with concurrent findings of fact by High Court- In this case the Privy Council has held that to interfere with concurrent findings of fact, there must be some miscarriage of justice or violation of some principles of law or procedure. (Para- 20). Ziaul Hasan Tarafder (Md)-Vs.- Mir Osman Ali and others. (Civil) 9 CLR (AD) 122