' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.---Facts leading to this R.S.A. Are that the respondents filed a suit for possession on 31-5-1973 contending that they were successors-in-interest of Sahu son of Muhammad Younas who was owner of land measuring 162-Kanals 11-Marlas situated in Mauza Kotli Nagra Tehsil Kamoki District Gujranwala and that the predecessor-ininterest of the appellants namely Muhammad Malik etc. Sons of Said Muhammad were in physical possession of the property and had fraudulently got sanctioned mutation No,360 entered on 6-41967 and sanctioned on 15-4-1967. The respondents sought possession of the land on the ground that they had not sold the land in question, written statement was filed before the learned Civil Judge contending therein that they had purchased the land against a sum of Rs,20,000 only for which the mutation was duly sanctioned in accordance with law on 15-4-1967. Further submits that the suit was hopelessly time barred, issues were framed, evidence was recorded by the learned Civil Judge and ultimately the suit was dismissed on 182-1976. Aggrieved by this, the respondents filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge who vide judgment and decree dated 30-7-1998 accepted the same and regular second appeal was filed by the appellants in this Court bearing No,65 of 1998 which was accepted on 24-6-2004, case was remanded to the learned trial Court directing that if the parties deemed it necessary to amend the pleadings, they be allowed and the case be decided afresh after an opportunity granting to the parties of leading evidence.
2. As per directions of this Court the suit was again tried by the learned Civil Judge and finally it was dismissed through judgment and decree, dated 16-62006. The appeal was filed before the learned Additional District Judge, who vide judgment and decree accepted the respondent's appeal on 1- 2-2007, consequently the suit filed by the respondents was decreed. Still aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 1-2-2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge the appellants filed the present R.S.A. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that judgments of both the learned Courts below are at variance whereas the learned lower appellate Court did not advert to the facts and points noted by the learned trial Court and reversed the judgment of the learned Civil Judge without attending to the most important points raised therein. Further submits that after the remanded by this Court the respondents/plaintiff filed an application for bringing on record the legal heirs of plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 wherein the pedegreetable was also brought on record where the name of father of Sahu was shown as Muhammad Yousuf whose father was Jhando whereas the death certificate produced by the plaintiffs as Exh.P.3 mentioned sahu alias Shera son of Muhammad Yousuf son of Alia, thus the evidence brought on record is contrary to their pleadings, consequently the suit could not have been decreed by the learned Additional District Judge, on the aforesaid evidence, further submits that the learned Additional District Judge has illegally and incorrectly confirmed the findings on Issues Nos.l to 5-B and 5-C on the erroneous assumptions that the respondents have not filed any cross-objections although Issue No,l necessarily to be adjudicated upon and the appellants who succeeded before the learned trial Court could challenge the findings recorded therein without filing any cross objections as held in Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Messrs Khalid Brothers PLD 1992 Karachi 78 and Abdul Haque and others v. Shaukat Ali and 2 others 2003 SCMR 74. Further submits that the learned Additional District Judge has failed to appreciate that none of the witnesses from the plaintiffs' side stated in the pre-remand proceedings that fraud had been committed with the plaintiffs respondents and even there was no explanation available on record as to how the plaintiffs/respondents got the physical possession of the land whereas the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant had been inducted into possession after the land had been sold to them. Finally submits that the amended plaint was filed contrary to all settled principles applicable to the amendment of pleadings.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents supports the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala and submits that the findings recorded by the learned lower appellate court is binding as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as Abbas Ali Shah and 5 others v. Ghulam Ali and another 2004 SCMR 1342. Further submits that the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned lower appellate Court as per law laid down in Mir Abdullah v. Muhammad Ali and 2 others 1977 SCMR 280. It is also stated - that so far the limitation is concerned, the case should not be decided only on the question of limitation rather the technicalities should be avoided and case be decided on facts.
4. Arguments heard; record perused.
5. It is undisputed fact that mutation was attested on 15-4-1967 and the suit was filed cm 30-5-1973 and on the face of it, it was a belated one, when the limitation in such like cases is prescribed as six years and even in para-5 of the plaint it is specifically mentioned that {{URDU TEXT}} ' So it is held that the suit was filed after the lapse of stipulated period of six years i.e, hit by limitation.
7. (sic) The Issue No,5-A is the core issue in the present controversy "whether the defendants validly purchased the suit land from Sahu, if so its effect? OPD." The issue was discussed by the learned Civil Judge in detail and held that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that mutation of sale No,360 is a result of fraud and misrepresentation/impersona-tion whereas on the other hand it is evident from the record that the defendants validity purchased the suit land for Rs,20,000 in view of these facts this issue was decided in favour of the defendants. In respect of this finding, I have gone through the entire evidence available on record and if it is found that the purchase of the suit land by the present appellants was a valid purchase and there was no element of fraud, misrepresentation or impersonation in the attestation of mutation of sale No,360 when the evidence on record reveals that the findings on issue No,5-A recorded by the learned trial Court is correct then no justification was rested with the learned Additional District Judge to reverse the same.
8. In view of the attending circumstances, it is held that the learned Additional District Judge, reversed the findings of the learned trial Court without logical reasons, committed the error of misreading of evidence thus taking a strength by the law laid down in Abbas Ali shah's case (supra), wherein it is held that "If the findings of the two Courts are at variance, the conflict would be seen to assess the comparative merits of such findings in the light of the facts of case and reasons in support of two different findings given by two Courts on a question of fact and if findings of Appellate Court are not supported by evidence on record and the same are found without logical reasons or are found arbitrary or capricious, same can be rejected in second appeal. "
' I am inclined to accept the present appeal resultantly, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge is set aside, the judgment and decree whereby the suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge is resorted, with no order as to costs.