1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This matter is coming before this Court for the second time. The appellants herein moved this Court earlier by a peti--tion for leave to appeal (C. P. No. 398/75) which was dismissed by this Court on 26-1-1976. The facts and background of the case have been stated in the order of this Court dated 26-1-1976 and may be conveniently reproduced hereunder.
2. 'The dispute in this case concerns an evacuee shop bearing No. 69/2-A situate in Town Sahiwal in the Sargodha District. By Orders made on 25-7-1960 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner the shop was transferred to Basit Ali, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants against his C. S. Form. The respondent Muhammad Siddiq also applied for the transfer of the shop on form L. S. But the said application was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 24- 4-1967 on the ground that the shop was not available, having already been transferred to Basit Ali.
3. The respondent's appeal was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 10-10-1968 and his revision petition was also dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 4-6-1969.
4. Aggrieved by these orders of the Settlement Authorities the respondent (Muhammad Siddiq) invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court and his writ petition was accepted by a learned Judge by his order dated 14-4-1975. He held that the matter regarding the identity of the shops in possession of Basit Ali and the respondent Muhammad Siddiq needed fresh inquiry, as there was evidence to show that Basit Ali had mentioned. Shop No. 70/2 in his S. C. From which was, however, corrected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to read Shop No. 69/2-A. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that even in the survey register originally prepared by the Rehabilitation Department the shop in posses--sion of Basit Ali was described as bearing Nos. 70/2 and not 69/2-A. The appellants herein, therefore, moved this Court seeking leave to appeal against this order of the High Court mainly on the ground that there was a concurrent finding of fact recorded by all the Settlement Authorities that Basit Ali was in possession of shop bearing No. 42/2- A and that the correc--tion of the property number was made on account of the fresh assessment which had been carried out by the District Rehabilitation Officer in Sabiwal under the orders of the Rehabilitation Commissioner. It was submitted that the respondents had, in fact, entered the property as a tenant of Basit Ali in 19.66 and had not filed his form under Settlement Scheme No. VIII until 29-10-1966 and, accordingly, he had no locus standi whatso--ever to the transfer of this property. It was contended that in these circumstances there was no jurisdiction for the High Court to order fresh inquiry into the matter.
5. This Court, however, took the view that the question as to the identity of the shop in the, possession of Basit Ali, as applied for by him, did indeed need further inquiry in view of the fact that the number of the property mentioned in his C. S. Form as well as the accompanying affidavit and also in the survey register prepared by the. Rehabilitation Department was 70/2 and not 69/2-A. The fresh assessm ent ordered by the Rehabilitation Commissioner appeared to relate to the rental assessm ent and not to the correction of entries relating to the identity of the occupants of the evacuee properties in the Town. In these circumstances, it was held that the learned Judge in the High Court was justified in directing that the whole question be examined for a proper resolution of.
6. The dispute between the parties. There was no justification, therefore, to take a different view.
7. After the said order the matter was fully gone into by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sargodba Mr. James , Maula Bakhsh, who by his order dated 21-7-1976 held that the possession of the shop in dispute by Basit Ali was not proved and, therefore, he was not entitled to its transfer. On the contrary Muhammad Siddiq respondent was found to be in continuous possession of the shop and, consequently, he was entitled to its transfer on his L. S. Form submitted under Settlement Scheme No. VIII.
8. It appears that in the meanwhile Basit Ali had died and the appellants as his legal heirs filed Writ Petition No. 991-R of 1977 under Article 199 of the Constitution of 1973 against the order passed by the Deputy Settle--ment Commissioner, Sargodha on the 21st July, 1976. This writ petition, however, was dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court vide his order dated 25-7-1977. In the course of his order, the learned Judge in the High Court observed that before it was, inter alia, contended by the counsel for appellants that the finding of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that Basit Ali was not in possession of the shop in dispute was contrary to the voluminous documentary evidence and, therefore, the finding though one of fact, could be assailed in this Court. He had relied on copies of the survey list for 1953-54 and up to 1957-58, copies of the assessemt register for the year 1959, statement of Muhammad Sharif Khan, Settlement Inspector, the C. S. Form filed by Basit Ali, application of Basit Ali to the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Sahiwal dated 16-2-1957 containing an admission in his favour and the plan of the property. The learned Judge, however, repelled the above contention observing that the predecessor of the appellants had applied for the transfer of Shop No. 70/2 and the same number was mentioned in the affidavit accompanying his C. S. Form. Mr. Nazir Ahmad Leghari, Assistant Settlement Commissioner with powers of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who transferred the shop to him on the 26th of July, 1960, was examined by Mr. James Maula Bakhsh, Deputy Settlement Commissioner but his evidence did not support the appellants. In these circumstances, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on considering the evidence before him transferred the shop in dispute to the respondents by his order dated 21-7-1976. This order was upheld by the High Court as mentioned already. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on the ground, inter alia, that the evidence of Muhammad Sharif, Rehab: Inspector, had not been attached due import--ance nor had the statement of Mr. Nazir Ahmad Leghari, Assistant Settle--ment Commissioner dated 21-7- 1976 was based on misreading and non. Reading of the material evidence ci, the record and therefore the matter required further scrutiny.
9. Malik Shaukat Ali, learned counsel for the appellants has, in a lengthy address, taken us through the statements of Muhammad Sharif and Nazir Ahmad Legbari in an attempt to show that their evidence was not correctly read and also not properly assessed. Furthermore, the order of the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner suffered from misreading and non-reading of the evidence. He also drew our attention to several documents placed on the record with a view to establishing that Basit Ali, predecessor-in--interest of the appellants, was, indeed, in possession of Shop No. 69/2-A and it was only by a mistake that in the C. S. Form Shop No. 70/2 was recorded and that such a defect was not fatal and the Settlement Authorities could, after scrutinising the record, correct such a mistake and to transfer it to the person who was, indeed, in its possession despite mention of the wrong number in the transfer form.
10. So far as the last submission is concerned, we entirely agree that the) mention of a wrong number would not debar the applicant from the transfer of the property, if he was, indeed, in possession of it and otherwise entitled, to its transfer. This case, however, is not all that simple, because in this!
11. Case the matter was remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to ascertain this very point, namely, whether Basit Ali was in possession of Shop No. 69/2-A or whether Muhammad.
12. Saddiq respondent, was in its possession, prior to the target date? Consequently, the appellants can only succeed if their contention that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's finding on this point should not be regarded as binding as it was arrived at on account of misreading of evidence, misinterpretation of documents and because it is otherwise not supportable by the material on the record, is accepted.
13. After carefully going through the statements of the witnesses and perusing the documents referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant and hearing Mr. A. R. Shaukat in reply we are satisfied that the finding of fact recorded by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on remand that Basit Ali was not in possession of the shop in dispute but that the same was in possession of Muhammad Siddiq respondent before the target date cannot be held to be arbitrary or fanciful. In fact, it represents a fair assessm ent of the entire material on the record. We may observe that even if some portion of the evidence of a particular witness has not been mentioned it will not imply that the said portion of his statement has been overlooked or omitted because the conclusion has - been reached on the overall effect of the entire statement. Similarly, the documents alleged to have been misinterpreted and misread are not of much importance. In effect, the matter has been decided on the weight of the evidence and it is not the function of this Court to re-appraise the entire evidence again and see which way the balance tilted. This is the function of the statutory authority and if it has been performed in a reasonable manner there is no ground for interference if some mistake can be detected here and there. We feel that the material has, on the whole been assessed fairly and, therefore, are not inclined to go behind the finding of fact that has been recorded.
14. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no interference with the order of the learned High Court is called for. We would, accordingly dismiss this appeal but leave the parties to bear their own costs.