' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8-10- 2003 and 28-11-2000 rendered by the learned Courts below whereby the suit for declaration filed by the respondent was decreed.
2. The respondent instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that a plot was allotted to her by Thal Development Authority on 30-9-1970 vide letter dated 24-8-1996, she deposited the price of the plot demanded by the petitioners amounting to Rs,16,900. On 27-3-1982 a purchase agreement was signed and registered in her favour; mutation was also attested but the petitioners are denying to incorporate the name of the respondent as owner in the record of the department. The description of the suit-land is fully described in the plaint. The petitioners contested the suit by filing a written statement wherein it was stated that the respondent deposited the price of the plot without obtaining prior permission of the competent/authorized authority, the application for allotment of plot was not given on the prescribed Form, the price of the plot as stated by the respondent was deposited in the year 1982 but the possession of the same was given to her in the year 1976 and in fact all this was managed by the respondent with the connivance of the officials of Thal Development Authority. A criminal case was registered against the respondent as well as the officials of the Department but the same because of non-availability of the evidence, cancelled.
The learned trial Court, out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, framed issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and finally after hearing the arguments of the parties, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The petitioner being dissatisfied of the said judgment and decree, preferred an appeal but the same was too dismissed by the learned appellate Court, hence this civil revision.
3. The learned Addl. Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below suffer from jurisdictional defect, legal infirmity and also contrary to the record available on the file so the findings are not sustainable in law. Further contended that both the learned Courts below have not bothered to peruse voluminous documentary evidence produced by both the parties and drawn a totally erroneous inference which is based on surmises and conjectures. Learned counsel specifically submitted that at the time of allotment of the plots by the Thal Development Authority, a form was prepared by the Department and every applicant was required to file the application on the said form whereas in this case, the respondent filed an application on a simple white paper and has not given any explanation to it but the learned Courts below without adverting this aspect of the case have elected to non-suit the petitioners on technical grounds. The learned counsel also referred Exhs.D/1 and D/5 in support of his argument. Also contended that the alleged allotment letter dated 30-9- 1970 provides that the allottee/respondent will deposit the earnest money within time stipulated therein i.e, one month and in case, the said amount is not deposited in time, the sale order will be withdrawn and the money, if deposited by the allottee will be forfeited. In this case, no such evidence was placed on record to prove the mandatory requirement of allotment and further also submitted that the respondent deposited an amount of Rs, 16,900 on 27-3-1982 in the State Bank of Pakistan instead of National Bank of Pakistan, Joharabad and challan thereof is signed by one Ihsan ul Haq, Assistant Director Engineering, Housing & Physical Planning Department in the capacity of District Housing Officer, Mianwali whereas he had never been District Housing Officer over there. Lastly contended that the possession report Exh.D/10 as recorded by the learned Courts below is dated 24-8-1986 whereas the price of the plot was allegedly deposited on 27-3-1982, which is sufficient to prove that the possession report is result of forgery and fraud. Lastly contended that Exh.D/5 is not signed by the respondent and in fact forged by an officer of the Department against whom inquiry was conducted and finally the increment of the said officer was stopped.
4. Learned counsel for respondent conversely supported the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below and submitted that both the learned Courts below after appreciating all the material including the evidence of the parties, have finally concluded that the respondent is owner of the plot and is entitled to be incorporated in the record as the owner of the plot. Learned counsel also submitted that the concurrent findings are not liable to be interfered with at the revisional stage as there is no discrepancy, mis-reading and non-reading of evidence or legal infirmity with the concurrent conclusion recorded by the learned Courts below.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. In the pleadings of the parties and the findings recorded by the learned Courts below, it is admitted that at the time of making the allotment of plots to the public at large, the petitioner- Department prepared a prescribed Form which may be called application Form for lease/purchase and every applicant or interested persons was required to purchase a Form from the Department and re-file the same after filing it for the allotment of the plot. The contents of the Form indicates that the application for the purchase of lease rights of the plot is to be given in the name of the Chairman, Thal Development Authority, Bhakkar and the case is to be processed after depositing the requisite amount with the Department. In this case admittedly, the respondent filed an application not on the prescribed Form but on a plain paper which is also without the signatures of the respondent.
' The statement of DW-1 who is employee of the Housing & Physical Planning Department also favours the contention of the petitioners ad DW-1 while appearing in the witness-box submitted a specimen of the Form/application for the allotment of plot in Heavy Factory Area, Mianwali. The said DW-1 also placed on record the application of the respondent dated 1-9-1970 Exh.D/5, which is without the signatures of the respondent. Both the learned Courts below have neither adverted to this aspect of the case and without referring anything concluded a concurrent conclusion, which is on the fact of it against the record. It can also be observed here while perusing the aforesaid documents, statement of the parties and findings of the learned Courts below that the allotment was not made in accordance with the policy and terms and conditions applied thereon and the connivance of the officer of the petitioner-Department with the respondent looks some where.
7. So far as the other documentary evidence, oral as well, the learned Courts below discussed the same in a very causal manner and failed to record any independent findings while discussing the said documents. For example, according to the terms of the allotment letter, the allottee, the respondent was required to deposit Rs,50 with the application whereas an amount of Rs,45,00 'within one month after the issuance of the allotment letter but in this case the respondent deposited an amount of Rs,16,900 on 27-3-1982 in the State Bank of Pakistan instead of National Bank of Pakistan, Joharabad and further the challan Form dated, 27-3-1982 is signed by Ihsan ul Haq, Assistant Director of the Housing & Physical Planning Department in the capacity of District Housing Officer whereas he had never been posted against the said post. The important piece of evidence has also been overlooked from the consideration of the learned Courts below that the possession report Exh.D/10 dated 24-8-1976 whereas the price of the plot was deposited on 27-3- 1982. It speaks volume and creates doubts about the genuinity of the document and indicates the connivance of the respondent with the official of the Department. The learned Courts below have also failed to take the cognizance of the very vital aspect of the case that the possession of the plot was handed over to the respondent without depositing of the price lease money and the said report is not signed by any competent authority. Although, the high-ups of the petitioner- Department initiated an inquiry but that was simply an eyewash and in fact to protect some officials of the department as well as the interest of the respondent. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that concurrent findings are not required to be interfered with while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Is not helpful to the respondent because of the fact that the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed in many judgments that although the concurrent findings are not called for any interference at the revisional stage if those are not result of misreading and non-reading of evidence, legal infirmity, material irregularity. In the present case, both the learned Courts below committed jurisdictional error by not examining the evidence, ocular as well as the documentary while rendering the concurrent conclusion and has overlooked a major part of the evidence produced by the parties, therefore, it is a fit case of misreading and non-reading of evidence and in such like cases the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed that the concurrent findings can be interfered with. In a judgment delivered by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan Mst. Sahib Noor v. Manzoor Haider Shah (PLD 1989 SC 568) that if the lower Court, misreads the evidence on record and failed to take notice of the vital fact appearing therein comes to an erroneous conclusion, it would be deemed to have acted with material irregularity and its decision is open to revision by the High Court. The learned counsel for the respondent in support of his contention has relied upon the judgments of Abdul Mateen and others v. Mst. Mustakhia (2006 SCM R 50), Abdul Aziz v. Sheikh Fateh Muhammad (2007 SCM R 336), Ghulam Nabi and others v. Seth Muhammad Yaqoob and others (PLD 1983 SC 344) and Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others (2000 SCM R 431). In a judgment supra (2006 SCM R 50) referred by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed while dealing with section 115 interpreting as under:-- --S.115---"Revisional jurisdiction--Concurrent finding---Scope---Held: Concurrent findings on a question of fact or mixed question of law and fact if was found suffering from misreading or non- reading of evidence or based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence, High Court should correct the error under its revisional jurisdiction but in absence of such defect the interference of High Court would amount to improper exercise of such jurisdiction."
' Whereas the other judgments are not applicable on the fact of the instant case and are distinguished.
8. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below and the record available on the file is sufficient to understand that the concurrent findings suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence rather based on no evidence, therefore, while exercising the jurisdiction under section 115, it is appropriate to remit the case of the learned trial Court for decision afresh after providing fair opportunities to all the parties.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition is accepted the impugned judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court to decide the same afresh after providing fair opportunities to all the parties to defend their case. No order as to costs.