' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against Lahore High Court judgment, dated 26-2-2004 passed in Regular Second Appeal No,54 of 2004, disturbing concurrent findings of fact recorded by two Courts below in a suit for rendition of accounts, filed by the petitioner.
2. Precisely, case of the petitioner appears, to be that there was a partners,hip agreement between him and respondent No,1 valid up to 20-12-1998 whereunder they used to have contracts for supply of banners, to the Health Department and maintained a joint account. It was alleged that respondent No,1, after receiving payments from the Health Department instead of depositing the amounts in the joint account of the partners,hip firm, credited the same into his personal account.
3. Suit was contested and issues were struck. Both the parties adduced evidence. Upon conclusion of the trial learned Civil Judge, First Class, Lahore decreed the suit and passed a preliminary decree. Appeal preferred against the judgment and decree was dismissed and the decree affirmed. In regular second appeal, however, a learned Judge in Chambers, of the High Court, upon reappraisal of the evidence, disturbed the findings of fact and dismissed the suit.
4. We have heard Chaudhry Riyasat Ali learned Advocate Supreme Court and gone through the record as well as the impugned judgment of the High Court. Tentatively observing, scope of interference in second appeal is always limited and the High Court could only interfere with the findings of fact on the question of law or error of jurisdiction whereas, in the instant case, it appears, that the High Court, upon reappraisal of evidence, has taken a contrary view, which, according to the learned counsel suffers, from misreading of evidence and misconstruction of the principles of law. Another ground urged in support of this petition is that respondent Waseem Gul did not step into witness-box to rebut various allegations of fact levelled by the petitioner and fully supported by his witnesses, which strongly militates against the defence raised by the respondents.
5. Leave to appeal accordingly granted, inter alia, to consider whether the High Court was legally entitled and justified in disturbing the findings of fact and committed an error of law by reappraising the evidence and taking a contrary view? Order accordingly.
6. Pending the decision of the appeal, operation of the judgment and decree of the High Court shall remain suspended.