সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
Concurrent Findings of Fact
In this connection, reliance may be placed on the case of Srimati Bibhabati Devi vs Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy. 51 CWN 98; (this case is popularly known as Bhawal Sanayasi case). In that cited case, he suit was decreed by the First Additional District Judge, Dhaka, Mr Pannal Lal Bose. It was a very long trial lasting for 608 days. The decree was affirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Fort William, Kalkata. The decree was challenged before the Judicial Committee of Privy Council which also affirmed the decree. 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. That miscarriage of justice means such a departure from the rules which permeates all judicial procedure as to make that which happened not in the proper sense of the word judicial procedure at all. That the violation of some principle of law or procedure must be such an erroneous proposition of law that if that proposition be corrected the finding cannot stand; or it may be the neglect of some principle of law or procedure, whose application will have the same effect. The question whether there is evidence on which the Courts could arrive at their finding is such a question of law. [73 DLR (AD) 255]
The Privy Council also held that the practice not to interfere with concurrent findings of fact is not a cast-iron one and there must be cases which will justify departure that there must be cases of such an unusual nature as will constrain the Privy Council to depart from the practice. [73 DLR (AD) 256]
In the case of Srinivas Ram Kumar vs Mahabir Prasad, AIR 1951 SC 177 it has been held that when the Courts below have given concurrent findings on pure questions of fact, this Court would not ordinarily interfere with these findings and review the evidence for the third time unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying departure from this normal practice. The position may undoubtedly be different if the inference is one of law from facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure. The practice adopted by this Court is similar to what has always been acted upon by the Judicial Committee. To quote the words of Lord Thankerton in Bibhabati vs Ramendra Narayan, 51 CWN 98: AIR (34) 1947 PC 19 "it is not by any means a cast iron practice"; there may occur cases of unusual nature which might, constrain us to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact to avoid miscarriage of justice. [73 DLR (AD) 256]
From the cases cited above, it appears that the principle not to interfere with concurrent findings of fact is not a cast-iron practice and that the High Court Division in appropriate cases may depart from that principle where there is any violation of any rule of law or procedure or where there have been misreading or non consideration of evidence affecting the ultimate decision of the Courts below. [73 DLR (AD) 256]
Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."
