' I intend to decide the following revision petitions by one consolidated order having similar fact and law:
(1) C.R. No,2584 of 2002,
(2) C.R. No,2585 of 2002.
2. The brief facts out of which the present revision petitions arise are that the respondent purchased an Insurance Policy No,A/19/8756643 on 25-6-1975 at the rate of premium Rs,1849 per year. The respondent also purchased an Insurance Policy No,A/19/8750359 on 25-8-1974 at the rate of premium Rs,3091 per year. The respondent paid the instalments of premium in the first insurance policy from 25-6-1975 to 25-6-1980 and thereafter he failed to make the payment of instalments of premium. He had paid Rs,11,094 in the first insurance policy. The respondent had paid instalments of premium in the second policy from 30-8-1974 to 26-12-1979, thereafter, he failed to make the payment of instalments of premium. Respondent had paid total amount of Rs,21,078 to the petitioner. The respondent filed two suits for recovery of Rs,11,094 and suit for recovery of Rs,21,078 before the Judge Small Cause Court, Lahore on 22-1-1998. The respondent through the aforesaid suits had prayed for the recovery of the amount submitting that it is due from the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan. The trial Court dismissed both the suits vide two judgments and decrees dated 29-4-1999. The respondent being aggrieved preferred two appeals before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, who accepted the same vide two judgments and decrees dated 6-8-2002 and reversed the findings of the trial Court, hence, the present revision petitions.
3. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the judgments of both the Courts below are at variance. The First Appellate Court did not advert to the reasoning of the trial Court and reversed the findings of the trial Court without applying its independent mind. He further submits that judgment of the First Appellate Court is result of misreading and non-reading of the record and the First Appellate Court had passed its judgment and decree on surmises and conjectures. He further submits that it is condition precedent in view of clause 5 that respondent has to file an written application before the petitioner but the respondent did not file any written application, therefore, policy of the respondent was lapsed automatically in favour of the petitioner. The learned First Appellate Court has wrongly interpreted clause 5 of the policy.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.
5. It is better and appropriate to reproduce clause (5) of the policy to resolve the controversy between the parties:-- Clause 5: "State Life will convert this policy into a paid-up policy, at the written request of the policy holder provided at least two full years' premiums have been paid on this policy and no premiums are in default. No further premiums will be payable but the sum insured will be reduced. The reduced paid-up sum insured will be quoted by State Life at the request of the policy holder.
' Any bonuses attached to the policy will be taken into consideration while determining the' paid- up sum insured. A policy once paid-up will not be entitled to any further bonuses.
' If the reduced paid-up sum insured works out to less than Rs,100, the policy will not be converted into a paid-up policy."
6. The aforesaid clause 5 clearly reveals that the condition for written request is not mandatory as no penal consequences is prescribed in the said clause and the contract between the parties cannot become void in view of the law laid down in M/s. S.M. Abdullah & Sons, Karachi v. M/s. Crescent Star Insurance Co. Ltd. (1993 M LD 1239). It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court to resolve the controversy between the parties:-- "The appellant categorically stated that the amount is due against the respondent, which has not been paid in spite of repeated requests. He drew attention of this Court upon the legal notice and condition 5 of the Contract/policy letter, if a policy holder fails to pay premium, the State Life will convert his policy into the paid, policy at the written request of the policy holder. In the instant case, the appellant paid premium w.e.f. 25-6-1975 to 25-6-1980, his policy falls within the ambit of Condition No,5 of the agreement, hence he cannot be deprived. The evidence which was adduced by the respondent does not corroborate the facts of the case. They have not produced any receipt regarding the receipt of loan.
' They have not tendered any documentary evidence in this support, hence, it cannot be held that the appellant obtained loan as the record is silent. Although, the appellant has paid Rs,11,094 to the respondent, which they are bound to pay the appellant. The judgment and decree dated 29-4- 1999 suffers with illegality. The trial Court has not considered the evidence carefully, so I set aside the judgment and decree dated 29-4-1999 and decree the suit of the appellant to the tune of Rs,11,094 with costs."
7. It is pertinent to mention here that the similar finding is given by the First Appellate Court in the second case. The aforesaid operative part of the judgment of the First Appellate Court clearly reveals that the First Appellate Court passed the order after applying its independent mind after proper appreciation of the evidence. The learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any piece of evidence which was misread or non-read by the First Appellate Court. He also failed to point out that the First Appellate Court at the time of reversing the findings of the trial Court have violated the principle laid down by the superior Courts. The Honourable Privy Council has laid down the principle for interference in the revision petition in "N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar and another v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras" PLD 1949 PC 26). The relevant observation is as follow:- - "This section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself upon three matters; (a) that the order of subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however profoundly, from the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law."
5. The aforesaid judgment of the Privy Council was considered and approved by this Court in "Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Syed Khalid Mahmood" (1985 CLC 657).
It is pertinent to mention here that the judgment of this Court was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court. The learned counsel of the petitioner failed to bring the case within the parameter prescribed by the Privy Council in the aforesaid judgment and also failed to point out any piece of evidence which was the result of misread and non-read. It is also settled principle of law that clause or clauses of insurance policy giving rise to two possible interpretations then the interpretation which is more beneficial to insured should be preferred as per principle laid down by the Karachi High Court in Taj Din Valliani and another v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (NLR 1984 Civil 492).
' In view of what has been discussed above, these revision petitions have no merit and the same are dismissed.