2022 SCMR 2034
Judgment of court below 'varied', 'upheld'or 'set-aside'---Meaning---If a Judgment is to change or alter or modify the ruling of the court below, it would be said that the Judgment has varied the ruling of the lower court---However, where the same is set aside, or upheld, no modification takes place and the impugned ruling of the court below is either accepted in toto or reversed absolutely---Where a Judgment is partially upheld, and partially reversed, and only that part of the Judgment has been challenged which is partially maintained, then the same cannot fall under the ambit of variation, and would have to be considered as a Judgment "upheld" to one extent, and a Judgment "set aside" to the rest of it.
Civil Appeal filed under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution challenging only one portion of the Judgment of the High Court and not challenging the other portion favouring the appellant---Maintainability---Portion of the Judgment of the High Court which varied the Judgment of the lower court was in favour of the appellant and that portion was not challenged by the appellant rather appellant had challenged a portion of the Judgment of the High Court as well as the two fora below whereby his claim was concurrently dismissed by all the two fora below, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant under Article 185(2)(d) was not competent; he was required to file a Petition for Leave to Appeal under Article 185(3)---By way of impugned Judgment the High Court had varied or set-aside the part of Judgment , decree or final order of the court immediately below---Appellant had only impugned that part of the Judgment of the High Court which dismissed the claim of the appellant in the Regular First Appeal (RFA)---Therefore, the present Civil Appeal under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution was not competent and the appellant was required to file a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution
Prosecution witness related to the deceased, testimony of---Mere relationship of the prosecution witnesses with the deceased cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such witnesses unless previous enmity or ill will is established on the record to falsely implicate the accused in the case.
0 Comments