' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs,49,893 of dower filed by Dilshad Fatima respondent No,1 against the petitioners who are legal heirs of her deceased husband Ghulam Murtaza Shah. On 10th of January, 1987 the suit out of which this petition has arisen was filed against the petitioners on the allegations that she was married to Ghulam Murtaza Shah on 10th of June, 1974 against a dower of Rs,50,000 out of which Rs,107 were paid at the time of the Nikah while Rs,49,893 were still payable by Ghulam Murtaza Shah when he died on 17th May, 1986 and the petitioners, being his legal representatives, were liable to pay this amount to respondent No,1.
2. The suit was resisted by the petitioners on the plea that in fact the marriage between respondent No,1 and Ghulam Murtaza Shah had taken place on 18th December, 1972 and a sum of Rs,107 only was fixed as dower which was paid at the time of Nikah.
3. Out of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned Judge Family Court:-
(1) Whether Rs,50,000 were fixed as prompt dower at the time of marriage between the plaintiff and Ghulam Murtaza Shah deceased? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs,49,893 from the defendant? OPP
(3) Relief.
' In support of her case respondent No,1 examined Maulvi Abdul Baqi P.W.1, Muhammad Yameen P.W.2, and appeared herself as P.W.3. She also produced Allah Bakhsh, Record Keeper of the Town Committee as P.W.4. The Nikahnama on which reliance was placed by her was produced as Ex.P.2.
In rebuttal, the petitioners examined Ghulam Abbas D.W.1, Muhammad Akhtar D.W.2 and Mehr Ali one of the petitioners appeared as D.W.3. The petitioners also produced certain documents which inter alia included copy of death certificate of Sardar Abdur Rehman Khan dated 13th August, 1973 according to which the date of death of Abdur Rehman Khan was 12th August, 1973.
4. The Family Court by means of its judgment dated 31st of October, 1988 came to the conclusion that the dower fixed at the time of marriage between Mst. Dilshad Fatima and Ghulam Murtaza Shah was Rs,107 which was duly paid at the time of Nikah. The Nikahnama Ex.P1 produced by respondent No,1 was found to be a fabricated document. It was noticed that according to the statement of Mst. Dilshad Fatima while appearing as her own witness, her grandfather Abdur Rehman Khan was present at the time of Nikah but according to the death certificate Ex.D.2 Abdur Rehman Khan had died on 12th of August, 1973.
5. Aggrieved by this decree, respondent No,1 filed an appeal which was accepted by an Additional District Judge, Sargodha on 12-2-1989. The learned Additional District Judge reversed the findings of the Family Court and held that the dower was fixed at Rs,50,000 out of which Rs,49,893 were still payable. While coming to this conclusion, the Additional District Judge relied upon Nikahnama Ex.P.2. It was observed that the controversy as to the date of marriage has no relevance. This judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge has been assailed by the petitioners by filing this Constitutional petition.
6. Mr. Muhammad Younis Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the judgment of the Additional District Judge suffers from serious errors apparent on the face of the record and further that the Additional District Judge has misread the evidence and also failed to consider relevant material on the record. According to the learned counsel interpolation in Nikahnama P.1 is evident on the face of the document but the Additional District Judge has not taken notice of the same. Mr. Muhammad Rashid Ahmad, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No,1 maintains that the findings of fact recorded by the Additional District Judge are not liable to be interfered in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, the petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel further submits that the findings recorded by the Additional District Judge are amply supported by the evidence on the record and are therefore unexceptionable.
7. In the present case the suit filed by respondent No,1 was dismissed by the Family Court on the findings that the marriage between respondent No,1 and.v Ghulam Murtaza Shah had taken place in the year 1972; and that the dower was fixed at Rs,107. One important fact which was noticed by the trial Court for not agreeing with respondent No,1 that she was married in the year 1974, was that she while appearing as P.W.3 had admitted that her grandfather Sardar Abdur Rehman Khan was present at the time of her Nikah but according to the death certificate D.2 he died on 12th August, 1973. Unfortunately, while reversing the decree of the Family Court, the Additional District Judge did not advert to this aspect of the case at all. The District Court under the Family Courts Act is the only Court of appeal. There can be no dispute that an Appellate Court is required under the law to dispose of the appeal after taking into consideration the entire material on the record. It is equally well-settled that if the Appellate Court proceeds to reverse the decree of the trial Court, it is incumbent upon it to not only take into consideration the entire evidence but also to take notice of the reasons which had prevailed with the lower Court for taking a contrary view. If any authority is needed the reference may be made to Madan Gopal and 4 others v. Maran Bepari and 3 others (PLD 1969 SC 617).
' In the present case no effort was made by the learned Additional District Judge to take notice or to deal with the reasoning which had prevailed with the Family Court for dismissing the suit filed by respondent No,1. It thus appears that the appeal filed by the petitioner has not been disposed of by the Additional District Judge in accordance with law.
8. As regards the objection of the learned counsel for respondent No,1 that this Court cannot while exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the Courts or tribunals below, suffice it to say that it is trite law that if while arriving at a finding even on a question of fact material evidence has been ignored from consideration or misread the evidence, the findings are open to correction by this Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review. In "the present case as already noticed the material aspect namely the death of Sardar Abdur Rehman Khan has been totally ignored by the Additional District Judge which has rendered his judgment to be without lawful authority. Another error into which the Additional District Judge fell was that he observed that the date on which the marriage between respondent No,1 and Ghulam Murtaza Shah had taken place was not relevant. This observation is clearly uncalled for in the circumstances of the case when the petitioners had specifically pleaded that Ghulam Murtaza Shah was married to Mst. Dilshad Fatima respondent No,l in the year 1972 against a dower of Rs,107. I have purposely refrained from making any comment on the merits, and the Nikah Ex.P.1 lest it may prejudice to any of the parties.
' As a result of what has been stated above this petition is accepted, the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge dated 12-2-1989 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the appeal filed by respondent No,1 shall be deemed to be pending before the District Court and shall be decided afresh in accordance with law.
' As the Additional District Judge has already expressed his opinion on merits, it is desirable in the interest of justice that the appeal is heard by the learned District Judge Sargodha himself.
' The parties shall appear before District Judge, Sargodha on 24th March, 1991. There shall be no order as to costs. /Case remanded.