' CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.--- The petitioners have sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 2-10-2003 wherein the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below were disturbed by the learned High Court while exercising power under section 115, C.P.C.
2. The necessary facts out of which the present petition arises are that petitioners filed suit for possession against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge, Sialkot. The contents of plaint reveal that petitioners filed aforesaid suit for possession claiming that the House bearing No,19/89 situated in Chowk Beriwala, Sialkot City has been transferred to their predecessor-in-interest Abdur Rahim vide PTD dated 10-12-1969. The room in question forms of their property. Respondents/ defendants contested the suit by filing written statement on the ground that they are purchasers of House No,32/18 and the disputed room forms part of their property. The trial Court out of the pleadings of the parties, framed 8 issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of the petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 22-4-1991. Respondents being aggrieved filed appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Sialkot who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 15-6-1998. Thereafter respondents filed Civil Revision No,1624-0- of 1998 before the learned High Court which was accepted vide impugned judgment. Hence, the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that learned High Court had erred in law to disturb the concurrent findings of fact in revision petition without adverting to the reasoning of the Courts below. He further maintains that the learned High Court had decided the case by misreading and non-reading of the record as the learned High Court had not adverted to the controversy in question which was settled between the parties in the settlement side vide order dated 6-5-1974 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The learned counsel has raised all the pleas which were raised by the petitioners' counsel before the. High Court and were noted by the learned High Court in the impugned judgment vide para.3.
4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the available record. The learned counsel has raised all the pleas which were raised by the petitioners' counsel before the learned High Court which were rejected with cogent reasons as evident from paras.5 and 6 of the impugned judgment which are reproduced hereunder:-- "I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The most important piece of evidence in this case is the statement of respondent/plaintiff himself. He has conceded that they were never in possession of the disputed room; the plaintiff only applied for that part of property bearing No,19/89 which was in their possession. It is also conceded that over the room in dispute, there are two more rooms to which the petitioners have no claim; the PTD has been though brought on the record, but there is no description of the property bearing House No,19/89. From this quality of evidence, it stands undoubtedly proved that respondents `were only transferred the House No,19/89 which was based for their possession and as room in question was possessed by the petitioners, since before partition, therefore, this never formed part of the property transferred to the petitioners. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the document site plan Exh.P.6 was never titled document and even if room in question is shown in the site plan, it would not Mean that same is the property owned by respondent; even otherwise, from Exh.P.6, it is not clear that room in question is shown as the part of the property bearing No,19/89 or it has been specified as to indicating the boundary of the Property No,19/89 for which the sanction was sought. These aspects of the matter have not been considered by the Courts below, resultantly, their findings on Issues Nos.6 and 7 are the result of non-reading and misreading of the evidence and are hereby set aside.
' As regards the question of limitation is concerned, respondents earlier endeavoured to seek the possession by filing an execution application. Though proceedings in this behalf are not on the record, but still it is admitted position as conceded by their counsel in the Court that they failed.
Anyhow, subsequent suit for permanent injunction was brought in the year 1973 against the petitioner; though written statement was not filed in this case and the case was dismissed for non- deposit of the process fee, yet even reckoning the limitation to be point of time, they should have brought the suit within 12 years. However, learned counsel for the respondents states that neither Article 142 nor 144 are applicable; if that being so then Residuary Article 120, is attracted in which the limitation provided is six years and in such situation, being entitled to the possession of the property since issuance of PTD in 1969 and further on account of the suit for permanent injunction, the present suit brought in 1987, by applying any provision of Limitation Act, would be hit by the limitation. This too has not been considered by the Court below, resultantly, by reversing the findings of the trial Court on Issue No,7-A, it is declared that the suit of the respondent was barred by time. In the light of above, by allowing this petition, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside with the result that the suit of the respondents stands dismissed with costs throughout."
5. We have minutely perused the judgment/decree passed by the First Appellate Court as well as the impugned judgment. The learned High Court has considered each and every piece of evidence after judicial application of mind and thereafter reversed the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below on Issues Nos.6 and 7 and issue regarding limitation whereas the Courts below had given findings of fact without appreciation of evidence as both the Courts below had appreciated the evidence in violation of the dictum laid down by the superior Courts. The impugned judgment is well-reasoned and based on well-founded ground realities on the basis of evidence available on record. It is a settled law that the .Learned High Court is competent to reverse the findings of Appellate Court when it is based on insufficient evidence, misreading of evidence, non- consideration of material evidence, erroneous assumption of facts and consideration and inadmissible evidence. The findings of the learned Appellate Court cannot be treated as sacrosanct and has rightly reversed by means of impugned judgment which is as mentioned above well reasoned.
6. For what has been discussed above, the petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. Leave declined.