1. ' This Revision is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 26-3-1992 and 13-4-1992 respectively, passed by Miss Mah Jabeen, learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi Central, affirming the Judgment and Decree passed by learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi Central, in respect of the suit in question. The facts relevant for decision of this Revision are as follows:-- ' Respondent No,1 Mrs. Jamal Rashid on 11-12-1982 filed the Suit No,5048/82 (Present No,409/88) for declaration and mandatory Injunction against Applicant Muhammad Bashir and the respondent No,2 KDA. It is her case that she had purchased the Plot bearing No,B-5, Sector No, 7-D-2, North Karachi, Township, from one Mrs. Nasreen Saleem wife of Saleem Abu Punoh for valuable consideration, which was allotted to her (Mrs. Nasreen Saleem) by the respondent No,2, after having received 50% occupancy value of Rs,2,824. On 9-3-1976 as per Allotment Order No,224 dated 4-6-1976 Book No,77, Serial No,3843, and physical possession of the said plot was handed over to her (Mrs. Nasreen Saleem) vide Letter dated 17-2-1977. The respondent No,1 applied for its transfer in her favour and the respondent No,2 directed her to submit all the original papers i,e, Sale Agreement receipts, and other- papers pertaining to it, which she did. The respondent No,2 had also directed her to give Public Notice in daily newspaper in terms that she had applied for transfer of said plot in her favour, and, if anyone had objection of such transfer, he could file his objections to the Administrative Officer of the respondent No,
2. Such notice was published in daily "Aghaz" dated 11-1-1978. Thereafter, the Scheme of North Karachi Township, was taken over by KMC, whose Administrative Officer, after verifying the facts, allowed the transfer in her favour and issued Transfer Order NoALM/HK/B-5 (7-D-2/77/3316), dated 1-6-1978. Before said Transfer Order was issued, she was directed to pay 50% balance occupancy charges/value, plus ground rent, water and conservancy charges, transferee-lease from charges, and site plan charges, amounting to Rs,2,888. Which she paid on 24-5-1978. The relevant authority also issued Lease Forms to her on 4- 6-1978, which were duly stamped by the Assistant Superintendent, Stamps on 14-6-1978. In the meantime the Scheme of North Karachi Township was again taken over by KDA from KMC. The respondent No,1 approached the respondent No,2 for registration of lease in her favour and it transpired that the file in question was lost/misplaced. Later on, someone also claimed said Plot and the law officer of the respondent No,2, after making necessary inquiries about the claim of said person, had opined that possession of respondent No,1 shall not be disturbed and the other party be directed to seek remedy in Court of law. The respondent No,1, on several occasions, approached the respondent No,2, but with no result. She however, came to know that it was the applicant' who was claiming said plot. The respondent No,2, vide its letters dated 18-9-1982 and 27-9-1982 advised the parties to seek redress from the Court of law. The respondent No,1 claimed that applicant had no title over the plot in question. She filed the suit and claimed the following reliefs:-- "(a) For declaration that plaintiff's title over the suit plot viz. Plot No, B-5, Sector 7-D-2 is clear and undisputed and the defendant No,2 is bound to register the proper document in his favour.
(b) For declaration that defendant No,1 has no right of whatsoever nature over the said suit plot.
(c) Mandatory injunction directing the defendant No,2 to register the lease document/Deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of the said suit plot viz., Plot No, B-5, Sector 7-D-2, North Karachi Township, Karachi.
(d) Any further relief which the Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
(e) Costs of the suit be allowed."
2. ' The applicant, in his written statement, denied the claim of the respondent No,1 and maintained that the Allotment Order submitted by the respondent No,1 is a forged and fabricated document.
3. Like respondent No,1, he also stated that the suit plot was allotted to said Mrs. Nasreen Saleem, but maintained that actual Allotment Order No, was 224 dated 4-6-1976 Book No,76, Serial No,3768 and not No,224 dated 4-6-1976 Book No,77, Serial No,3843. According to him, he had purchased said plot from the original allottee. In written statement he claimed that he was in possession of said plot.
4. ' KDA in its written statement admitted that the original allottee of said plot was Mrs. Nasreen Saleem and that the respondent No,1, after having purchased it from original allottee, had applied for its transfer in her favour and she was directed to submit the relevant papers, including Sale Agreement, receipts etc. KDA also admitted that KMC Authorities issued transfer order in favour of respondent No,1, as alleged by her. It has also been admitted by the KDA that the respondent No,1 was directed to pay 50% balance occupancy charges and other charges, which she paid on 24-5- 1978. The KDA, however, maintained that correct Allotment Order No, was 224 dated 4-6-1976, Book No,76, Serial No, 3768.
5. ' From the pleading of the parties, the following Issues were settled:- "(1) Whether the suit is maintainable under Law?
(2) Whether the allotment order issued in the name of Nasreen Malik under which the plaintiff has been seeking declaration is forged?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit property on the basis of the said allotment letter issued in the name of Mrs. Nasreen Malik?
(4) Whether the KDA can be estopped from questioning the entitlement of plaintiff after mutating the suit property in her name?"
6. ' At trial the respondent No,1 examined her Attorney Abdul Hameed. The applicant examined himself and to Mr. Kazi Khalid Mohsin an Assistant Director KDA. The respondent No,2 examined Muzaffer Ahmed Bhutto, an Assistant Director KDA.
7. ' On assessm ent of the evidence brought on record learned trial Judge for Issue No,1 decided that the suit was maintainable. Issues Nos.2 and 3 were decided in favour of the respondent No,1 with finding that the documents produced by her were genuine. For Issue No,4, he held that respondent No,1 was entitled to said plot and her case was based on genuine documents. He also observed that a blunder was committed by the KDA Staffs when they issued two Allotment orders in respect of the same property on the same date and also accepted the documents from two different persons for its transfer. Consequently, he decreed the suit as was prayed.
8. ' Learned Additional District Judge concurred with the finding of the trial Court, and while doing so observed that the applicant had not produced any document regarding possession of said plot and on the contrary admitted that he was not in possession of said plot, and that he had not filed any objections against the notice, which was published in a newspaper. Learned Additional District Judge also observed that Mr. Muzaffar Ahmed Bhutto, Assistant Director KDA, in his evidence, clearly admitted about filing of Joint Application by the Original Allottee and the respondent No,1 on 22-5-1978 along with relevant documents, including Sale Agreement, Indemnity Bond, Challan, and also about another such application moved on 22-4-1981. Learned Additional District Judge expressed her apprehension that probably the applicant had obtained the allotment order by connivance of the KDA officials and dismissed the first appeal.
9. ' Mr. Mirza Waqar Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant contended that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record and ignored the fact that the allotment order of respondent No,1 was a forged document. Learned counsel also submitted that even if said allotment order is not taken as a forged document, yet, it could not be preferred over the allotment order of the applicant, which was issued on Book No,76, as against the Book No,77 as such, it was prior in time and should have been preferred. He also argued that concurrent findings of the Courts below are primarily based on misreading of evidence and caused grave injustice to the applicant, therefore, this Court, while exercising Revisional Jurisdiction has power to reverse such findings. In support of above contentions he cited (1) Jan Muhammad Khan v. Shah Mir Hussain and others 1985 SCM R 2029, (2) Haji Muhammad Zaman v. Zafar Ali Khan and others PLD 1986 SC 88, (3) Muhamd and 2 others v. Mst.Banuk Naz Khatoon 1989 CLC 1819, Quetta, (4) Ghulam Hussain and another v. Muhammad Hussain 1986 CLC 770, Karachi, (5) Mst. Bibi Amina v. Ikramullah and 4 others 1989 CLC 698, Peshawar.
10. ' In Jan Muhammad Khan's case, it was held that while exercising jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. High Court was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of facts which were based on misreading of documents.
11. ' In Haji Muhammad Zaman's case, having taken into consideration the law laid down in PLD 1970 SC 139 and PLD 1983 SC 53 it has been observed that erroneous decision of facts are not revisable, except in case where decision is based on no evidence or in admissiable evidence or is so perverse that grave injustice would result therefrom. In Muhammad's case, it was laid down that subsequent purchasers of suit property would not be entitled to protection because at the time of alleged sale, vendor/defendant was not owner of the property having already sold it to plaintiff, and subsequent transaction would be void. In Ghulam Hussain's case, it was the finding of the Court that document prior in date would have precedence over document subsequent in date relating to transaction. In Mst. Bibi Amina's case, dictum of law laid down by the Court is that where a document which had been tendered to serve as a foundation was found to be doubtful, the entire edifice built thereon would fall to the ground.
12. Main point to be considered is that whether in the circumstances of the case, Revisional Jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Can he exercised by this Court. Revisional Jurisdiction primarily is discretionary in nature and has a very limited scope, particularly when concurrent findings have been recorded by the Courts below. Revisional jurisdiction, however, can be invoked in the case which involves illegal assumption, non-exercise or illegal exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts below. Its main object is to rectify the glaring error of the subordinate Courts, which eventually caused grave injustice. However, if the subordinate Court while exercising its jurisdiction has not violated any provision of law nor committed any mistake of procedure, which could ultimately affect the decision on merit, this Court would not interfere in the matter. Mere fact that this Court may have appreciated the evidence in different way and possibly may have drawn a different conclusion, yet this Court would not disturb the finding of the subordinate Court if it was established that the order of subordinate Court was within its jurisdiction and the order did not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. When factually substantial justice has been done in the matter, revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked on technical ground.
13. ' Coming back to the evidence of this case, it is noted that it has been properly appreciated by the Courts below and neither it is a case of misreading of evidence nor the findings, are perverse nor injustice has been done to the applicant. Both the iitnployees of KDA namely, Kazi Khalid Mohsin, Director Land and Muzaffar Ahmed Bhutto, Assistant Director Land, in their respective deposition, nowhere stated that Allotment Order produced by respondent No,1 was forged. The respondent No,1 had produced Sale Agreement dated 2-5-1978 before the KDA along with Indemnity Bond etc. These are admitted facts that the respondent No,1 had issued a notice in daily "Aghaz" dated 11-1- 1978 and had filed Joint Application dated 22-5-1978 signed by her and the Original Allottee..The applicant, in cross-examination, clearly stated that Original Allottee had executed Agreement of Sale in his favour in the year 1980. The evidence of applicant, otherwise, does not inspire confidence. Frequently he changed his version which by itself is sufficient to discard his testimony.
14. Admittedly, he is not in possession of the said plot, while the possession of the respondent No,1 over the said plot has been established. Allotment order produced by respondent No,1 and applicant are of the same date viz. 4-6-1976. The respondent No,1 entered into agreement of sale with the original allottee much earlier than the applicant, as is evident from the dates mentioned above. The entire emphasis of the applicant is that the allotment order produced by him is on Book No,76 and that of the respondent No,1 on Book No,
77. Under the circumstances it is of no significance.
15. ' In consequence, I do not find any merit in this Revision and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.