CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR , J.---Undisputedly , subject land fully detailed in para 2 of petition in hand was titled by Atta Mohammad, predecessor-in-interest of present petitioners. On 15.08.2008 Hassan Nawaz, respondent through his real brother Ch. Waqar Ahmad Bhatti, Advocate instituted a suit for specific performance of purported agreement to sell dated 15.08. 2008 scribed by the Clerk of said Advocate on a plain paper contending therein that transaction was struck again st Rs.15 lac with the late vendor , who after receiving Rs.13 lac not only executed the contract rather possession also changed hands. The suit was resisted by legal representatives of alleged vendor/petitioners with the firm stance that agreement to sell was forged and fictitious document, which was collusively managed through fraud and misrepresentation, but neither any transaction of sale was struck nor consideration was received by him. It was further pleaded that possession of disputed property was with their uncle, who was also maternal uncle of plaintif f and to sustain his possession, the suit was instituted for ulterior motives. After settlement of issues, the evidence was recorded through Local Commission and ultimately the suit was decreed, whereas appeal of the petitioners was dismissed, hence this Civil Revision.
2. During the course of deliberation, learned counsel for the petitioners emphasi zed that despite the fact that in memorandum of the appeal, it was specifically pleaded that document was fictitiously managed through the Clerk, but no heed was paid by the Court to dilate upon this fact. On asking, learned counsel for respondent failed to deny that Munawar-uz-Zaman, the purported scribe was the Clerk of Advocate, whereas the latter was real brother of the respondent. Having confirmed so, notwithstanding that suit was unanimously decreed, this Court was inclined to probe the record deeply with more care and when evidence was scanned with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties, it was observed that the Local Commission while recording the statements of the DWs did not perform his job honestly , who during course of cross-examination recorded some of replies totally against the gist as well as substance of their statements-in-chief. Although, neither specific objection was raised during course of trial nor it was agitated in the Civil Revision in hand, yet being the Court of visitorial and corrective jurisdiction, I was persuaded that some wrong for some ulterior motive with collusiveness was committed. Undoubtedly , a Court is bound to follow the law of land and to proceed with the trial as per procedure laid down in the Code, 1908. The rule 8 of the Order XVIII thereof prescribes the mode for recording of evidence other than by the Judicial Officer, which being applicable is advantageous to be reproduced here:- "Memorandum when evidence not taken down by Judge.--When the evidence is not taken down in writing by the Judge, he shall be bound, as the examination of each witness proceeds, to make a memorandum of the substance of what each witness deposes, and such memorandum shall be written and signed by the Judge and shall form part of the record."
This mandatory requirement was introduced so that the Judicial Officer should be cognizant of the testimony deposed by the witness to obviate any chance of its misconstruction or misinterpretation. Moreover , the referred provision is also followed by its rule 14, which reads as under:- "Judge unable to make such memora ndum to record reasons of his inability .--(1) Where the Judge is unable to make a memorandum as required by this Order , he shall cause the reason of such inability to be recorded, and shall, cause the memorandum to be made in writing from his dictation in open Court.
(2) Every memorandum so made shall form part of the record."
It demonstrates that if the Judicial Officer is unable to make a memorandum, he shall record reason of his inability and its sub-rule (2) further requires that the memorandum so made, shall form part of record, but in this case the oral evidence so recorded by the Local Commission was not even signed or sealed by the learned Judicial Officer.
Moreover , the contract Ex: P1 having been scribed on the plain paper as it is, was received in evidence, whereas under the law it was to be impounded, as such the Trial Court acted in perfunctory manner and the provisions referred hereinabove were not adhered to, therefore, evidence recorded without following the mandatory procedure cannot be treated part of record of the suit and deserves to be bulldozed.
3. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent that this Petition was filed beyond time and is liable to be dismissed on this short ground might have some force, but each case has to be dealt with on its own merits. No doubt, law of limitation is a substantive law and in routine cases cannot be conside red as a mere technicality , but I am of the firm belief that under one part of section 115 of the Code, 1908, the strict compliance of law of Limitation can be avoided while invoking suo motu powers for disposal of such like cases where not only connivance of an Advocate with his fellow/Local Commission rather pressure of the former on the Judicial Officer is vivid from the record, as such it is not a case where the judgments of Courts below can be given any shelter by application of law of Limitation. This view finds support from the conclusion drawn by the Larger Bench of the apex Court in a case reported as " Hafeez Ahmad and others v . Civil Judge, Lahore and others " (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 400).
4. The next stance of learned counsel for respondents that concurrent findings cannot be interfered with is fallacious. There is no quibble to the proposition that the Revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 of the Code, 1908 is invoked only in the cases wherein the lower Courts have exerci sed the jurisdiction not vested in them by law or they failed to exercise it so vested or it was exercised in an illegal manner or that some material irregularity was committed, but this is the established law that in case wherein it is found that the findings of the subordinate Courts were suffering from misreading and non-reading of evidence or that the conclusion drawn was in absolute disrespect to the law and facts of the case, this Court must interfere in the matter in its revisional jurisdiction and correct the illegality committed by the subordinate Courts. See "Shumal Begum v. Gulzar Begum (1994 SCMR 818 )
5. Consequently , this Civil Revision is allowed, impugned judgments and decrees of both the learned Courts below are hereby set aside and the suit institute d on behalf of the petitioners will deem to be pending before the learned Civil Court, who will examine the witnesses of the parties himself and decide the same afresh keeping in view the F mandate of Order XX, Rule 5 of the Code, 1908 in either way within a maximum period of six months positively .
The parties are directed to approach learned District Judge, Hafizabad on 07.01.20 19 for entrustment of suit file to a Court of competent jurisdiction for further proceedings.
6. Before parting with this judgment, it is clarified that if the learned Court or the respondents feel that some pressure is exerted by the local Bar to make a favourable order , then either of them may refer/approach this Court for transfer of the lis to some other district.