' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- Facts giving rise to the instant civil revision are that one Ilim Din now deceased was owner of the suit-land, who transferred his property vide registered deed dated 12- 2-1975 in favour of Muhammad Yaqub (deceased). After the death of Muhammad Yaqub, his successors had been impleaded as party. According to the plaint suit-land had been sold by llim Din in fact in favour of Muhammad Yaqub for Rs,50,000 including mortgaged money of Rs,5,900 whereas this transaction had been shown fictitiously as mortgaged to avoid pre-emption suit although it was a sale. It is alleged in the plaint that Muhammad Yaqub (deceased) sold the land in question in favour of Taj Muhammad vide registered deed dated 16-9-1975 for Rs,100,000 and according to the plaintiffs before the civil Court, this sale was fictitious. It was further averred in the plaint that the defendants failed to give some Khasra numbers of the suit land in registered sale dated 16-4-1975, therefore they managed a consent decree in favour of the defendant Taj Muhammad, so they claimed their superior rights of preemption being owners of the suit land pertaining to the alleged sale dated 12-2-1975 and in alternative against subsequent sale dated 16-9-1995 in favour of Taj Muhammad defendant.
2. The defendants Nos. 1 to 7 contested the suit being legal heirs Muhammad Yaqub (deceased) raising certain legal objections regarding limitation and court-fee. Taj Muhammad defendant No,8 in the suit also contested the suit denying contents of the plaint as well as the superior rights of pre-emption as claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint, he raised also objections of limitation and court-fee. In the suit defendant No,9 is pro forma defendant and she was proceeded ex parte.
3. Out of the pleadings of the parties certain issues were framed, evidence was produced by both the parties before the learned Civil Judge, who through judgment and decreed dated 30-5-1986 passed a decree for the possession of suit land in favour of Faqir Muhammad etc.,i,e, the plaintiff in the suit against the defendants subject to payment of pre-emption money of Rs,1,00,000.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree 30-5-1986 Rana Taj Muhammad and others filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot Camp at Narowal, who confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal with costs through judgment and decree dated 21-12-2007. Aggrieved by both the judgments and decrees the present civil revision is filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that practically the impugned judgment and decree is against the parameter laid down by this Court in the remand order in Civil Revision No,215 of 1988, whereby the petitioner's case was remanded to the lower Appellate Court. Particularly the lower appellate Court ignored the application for additional evidence of the petitioner with regard to Mutation No,350 as well as in respect of certified copy of the registered sale-deed Exh.P.11. And did not discuss the material piece of evidence and moreso Roznamcha Waqiati were also ignored.
Further submits that Exh.D.6, which was a judgment of the civil Court passed in case of Faqir Muhammad and others v. Rana Taj Muhammad was also not taken into consideration, resulting into serious miscarriage of justice.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supports the judgment of both the Courts below and requests for the dismissal of civil revision on the sole ground that this Court cannot interfere in the concurrent findings of the Courts below because this Court has limited powers in that respect.
7. Argument heard. Record perused.
8. So far the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents in respect of limited jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, there is no cavil from this proposition but at the same time it is also settled law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases reported as Abdul Sattar v. Mst. Anar Bibi and others PLD 2007 SC 609 and Mubarik Ali through L.Rs, v. Amroo Khan through L.Rs, 2007 SCM R 1714, wherein it is held that the concurrent findings of the Courts below are not sacrosanct and the High Court can reverse the same if some material illegality, irregularity, non-reading/misreading of evidence is found, so keeping in view the law laid down supra the contention of the A learned counsel for the respondents is repelled and I am inclined to interfere in the instant matter on the ground that while non-suiting the present petitioner, both the Courts below did not take into consideration the material evidence available on record in the form of statement of D.W.5 Taj Muhammad, who categorically stated that before the disputed sale/purchase they were owner in the estate, they purchased, land from Saluki and even on that purchase of land the plaintiffs also filed a suit for pre-emption, meaning thereby that the contention of the present petitioner namely Taj Muhammad was accepted by the present respondent. In addition to this, there is another statement of Taj Din (P.W.3), who categorically admits; "before the disputed sale/purchase, Taj Muhammad purchased 9 Marla from Saluki, moth& of Bashir and it is also admitted that the suit for pre-emption was filed against Taj Muhammad by the plaintiff but later on that was withdrawn. "
9. These very statements of P.W. And DW were not taken proper care by the Courts below justifying the interference by this Court in the present civil revision.
10. The foremost claim of the present respondents before the learned Civil Court through their suit was that they were owners in the village estate, the transfers were in fact a sale, which was fictitiously shown as mortgage but P.W.3 Taj Din, who admitted in cross-examination that before the impugned sale, the vendee had purchased land measuring 8 Marla and the claim of the present petitioner is that the rights as purchaser of 8 Marla were recognized in the Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 1996. Despite these statements, in the earlier round of litigation the Courts below misinterpreted the evidence resulting into the acceptance of civil revision of the present petitioner through judgment dated 3-74997 by this. Court remanding the matter to the learned Additional District Judge, who allowed the petitioner to produce additional evidence holding that law favours adjudication of case on merits and avoidance of rejection on technicalities that further finding/view taken by the learned Additional District Judge as to the sale in favour of the vendee has taken place during the pendency of the case, even otherwise, appears to be due to misreading of the record, meaning thereby that the purchase of land of 8 Marla by the present petitioner was considered a valid purchase even by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, so I am of the view that the petitioner had established that he was also a co-sharer in the estate, so the claim of the respondents' preferential rights on the basis of owners in the estate and non-existence of the petitioner's right as owner in the estate is erroneous. This misreading/non-reading rather misinterpretation of valid peace of evidence available on record is a sufficient ground for setting aside the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. Accordingly the civil revision is accepted and the judgments/decrees impugned are declared illegal.