' Claiming that the suit land was under cultivating possession of the petitioner, Ghulam Qadir respondent No,1 herein sued him for recovery of Rs,22,400 as value of his share of produce in respect of Kharif 1982 and Rabi 1983. The petitioner contested the suit on a number of grounds. The Assistant Commissioner with powers as Collector by his judgment, dated 9-3-1985 decreed the suit. With this decree, the Additional Commissioner did not differ and dismissed the petitioner's appeal on 24-2-1986. The revision petition brought by the petitioner followed the same wake and the order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue dismissing the revision petition is dated 24-3-1986. The petitioner has now come to this Court for removal of the orders of the Tribunals below through judicial review.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the 'parties and examined the available record. The main submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that before the date of lease in favour of respondent No,1 from Muhammad Rafiq and others, in the litigation between the latter on the one side and Mushtaq etc. On the other side, the lessor ceased to be owner of the land in question. It is contended that in support of his this stand the petitioner tendered in evidence documents Exhs.D .1, 2 and 3 but these have been ignored by the Courts below. Reference is also made by the petitioner's learned counsel to the statements of Muhammad Iqbal (D.W.2) and Mushtaq Ali (D.W.3) to contend that the Tribunals below did not revert to this piece of evidence as well.
3. In reply to these arguments the learned counsel for the contesting respondent contends that the documents aforesaid are merely photostat copies which were brought on the record subject to the respondent's objection; even if these documents were considered, these being not admissible in evidence, the verdict of the Courts below would not have been a different one. The argument that the oral testimony of D.W.2 and D.W.3 was not attended to, has also been refuted.
4. From the perusal of the judgment of the Assistant Commissioner it is evident that he did make a reference to the documents Exhs.D.1, 2 and 3 but failed to discuss the question of admissibility or the evidential value thereof. It is discernible from the orders of the Appellate and Revisional Courts that they did not at all refer to these documents and their decision was largely influenced by the entries in the revenue record. It can hardly be disputed that if the said documents are treated to have been validly brought on the record and read in evidence the entries in the revenue record stand denuded of much of their legal efficacy. It is not possible to examine the admissibility of these document in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction particularly when the original record is not before this Court. The matter, therefore, shall have to be referred back to the Tribunal below.
Needless to mention that any finding recorded in oblivision of an important piece of evidence is liable to be struck down under Article 199. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is accepted and the impugned orders declared to have been passed without lawful authority. The case is sent back to the Assistant Commissioner with the direction that he shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence already brought on the record by the parties. He shall decide the case expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. The parties are left to bear their own costs and directed to appear before the learned Assistant Commissioner on 2- 10-1986.