' This revision calls in question, judgment, dated 10-2-1985, of the learned District Judge Attock by which appeal against judgment, dated 19-6-1984 of the learned Civil Judge Talagang, was dismissed.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are, that respondents Nos.1 to 11, filed a suit for possession of a haveli, comprising of seven rooms and a courtyard alongwith land measuring 2 Kanals and 1 Marla, which was allegedly be located in Khasra No,1017. It was claimed that the respondents were owners of land measuring 2 Kanals and 1 Marla in Khasra No,1017 where they had raised residential houses in the form of haveli. A year before the filing of the suit, Muzaffar Khan, petitioner, took possession of one haveli, comprising of four rooms and a courtyard, within the area of one Kanal for temporary residence with promise to restore the possession, as and when so desired by the respondents. It was further alleged, thhat Gul Muhammad (defendant No,2 in the suit and respondent No,11 herein), also took possession of one haveli, having an area of one Kanal and one Marla on the same understanding. The respondents pleaded that the petitioner refused to restore the possession which necessitated filing of suit.
3. The suit was resisted by the petitioner, who raised a number of preliminary objections and also denied the claim of respondents on facts. It was specifically pleaded, that the boundaries of the property were not correctly given, the area of haveli was incorrectly entered and that the suit was bad for non joinder of necessary parties. On factual side, the petitioner denied the allegations that he had acquired a haveli for temporary use from the respondents.
4. After issues and evidence, the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit vide judgment, dated 19-6- 1984. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned District Judge, vide judgment, dated 10-2-1985, which led to the filing of this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued, that specific contention was raised before the Courts below that proper issues had not been framed which resulted in misdirection of trial and recording of erroneous findings on issue No,6. He further submitted that the issue as to whether the property in dispute was situated in Khasra No,1017 or Khasra No,1018 arose out of the pleadings but was not framed. An affidavit was filed alongwith the appeal, stating that not only the issue was claimed before the trial Court but also the matter was urged before the first appellate Court and specific ground was also taken that further issue was called for but no findings on this aspect of the matter was recorded. Learned counsel contended that according to his instructions, the haveli in issue was located in Khasra No,1018. He added, that a commission be appointed to make spot inspection and report as to the exact location of the haveli and if it was proved that the haveli was located in Khasra No,1017, the petitioner would not pursue the issue any further and would vacate the premises but it was found that the haveli was located in Khasra No, 1018, then the respondents could be non-suited.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, argued that concurrent findings of facts were recorded against the petitioner, which were immune from challenge in the revisional jurisdiction. Relying on 1997 SCM R 1139, 1997 SCM R 846 and 1994 SCM R 973, learned counsel submitted that the revision was not maintainable.
7. In the course of hearing of this petition, learned counsel for the respondents was asked, as to where the haveli was located and which was the title document of the respondents on the basis thereof ownership of land was claimed. Learned counsel submitted that the haveli was located in Khasra No,1017 and that the respondents relied on Exh.P-1 in support of their title. The perusal of Exh.P-1 shows, that the existence of haveli is not mentioned in the document. In the column of ownership, the respondents are shown to be owners while in the column of cultivation/possession, the land is shown to be in self-occupation of the respondents. This being so, the claim of the respondents about Haveli becomes doubtful Reason being, that Exh.P-1 does not depict that the petitioner or for that matter Gul Muhammad is in possession of any part of the property subject- matter of Khasra No,1017 nor it shows existence of haveli on any part thereof. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the entries in Exh. P-1 were indicative of the fact that the land was not under cultivation but was a building site. Be that as it may, this entry does not indicate, if the petitioner is in possession of any part of Khasra. No,1017 or there exist a haveli in this Khasra number, in occupation of the petitioner.
8. The two Courts below, without correctly looking into the documentary evidence or considering the real issue arising in the suit, proceeded on erroneous assumptions. Learned Civil Judge observed that the possession of the petitioner in the haveli was permissive and that the document Exh.P-1, supported the title of respondents. Same is the position with the learned District Judge, who observed that the respondents claimed to be owner of haveli in Khasra No,1017 whose claim was supported by Jamabandi Exh.P-1. He, therefore, concluded that the respondents were established to be owners of property in dispute. The real issue was, as to whether haveli was located in Kliasra No,1017 or in any other Khasra number. It was a suit based on title and, therefore, without proving title of the property, the respondents could not succeed in getting possession of the property. The two Courts below, relied on Exh.P-1 which do not reflect that the haveli was located in Khasra No,1017 or that the petitioner was in possession of any part thereof, As noted supra, Khasra No,1017 is shown to be in self-occupation of the respondents, which makes the claim of respondents doubtful and created doubts as to their plea that the petitioner is in possession of a part of this property. The findings were, thus, recorded by misreading of the evidence and on extraneous grounds. In fact the conclusion drawn by the two Courts below are not based on any legal or admissible evidence on record. The question of title could obviously be resolved by documentary evidence while documentary evidence, do not support the plea of respondents.
9. As to the objection that concurrent findings of fact have been recorded, which were immune from interference in revisional jurisdiction, there is no cavil with the proposition that the concurrent findings of facts, howsoever, erroneous, cannot be disturbed in revision, on the ground that a different view of the evidence could be taken. Nevertheless, the interference cannot be refused, if the findings are based on misreading of the evidence, non-reading of the evidence, misinterpretation of the evidence or suffering from perversity of reasoning.
10. The case of "Abdul Hakim v. Habib Ullah and 11 others" (1997 SCM R 1139), does not lend any support to the respondents. In the said case, it was held that findings of fact can only be interfered with by the High Court under section 115 of C.P.C., if Courts below had either misread evidence on record or while assessing or evaluting evidence had omitted from consideration some important piece of evidence which had direct bearing on the issues involved. It was further ruled that findings of fact would be open to interfere under section 115, C.P.C. Where approach of Courts below was perverse. The operative part of the judgment reads as follows:- "As earlier pointed out by us, interference with a finding of fact by the Courts below by the High Court an exercise its revisional jurisdiction under section 1.15, C.P.C. Could only be justified if such finding is found to be suffering from misreading of evidence or non-consideration of important and material evidence or the finding is the result of previous appreciation of evidence on record. A wrong or erroneous conclusion on a question of fact by the Courts below is not open to interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C."
11. In the case of "Muhammad Rauf and 10 others v. Muhammad Abbas and another"(1994 SCM R 973), it was held, that concurrent findings of the Courts below which are supported by such documentary as well as oral evidence cannot be interfered with on the ground of misappreciation of evidence but such findings can be challenged if based on extraneous considerations not supported by facts on record or if the same are result of surmises and conjectures.
12. In "Muhammad Sain v. Muhammad Din" (1996 SCM R 1918), it was ruled that the findings of fact unless based on misreading of evidence or omission to consider material evidence or are contrary to the evidence cannot be interfered with. In the said case, the findings of facts were reversed as the same were recorded by misreading of evidence and not considering the evidence of two witnesses, which was not approved.
13. In "Nasir Abbas v. Manzoor Haider Shah" (PLD 1989 SC 568), it was ruled that if the Courts below misread the evidence or fail to take notice of a vital fact appearing therein, come to an erroneous conclusion, it would be deemed to have acted with material irregularity and its decision would be open to revision.
14. In "Mohabbat v. Asadullah Khan and others" (PLD 1989 SC 112), it was ruled that where the appellate Court made an assumption which was erroneous and required further evidence to bring out the real factual position which was pivotal in deciding the case on merits in order to do justice between the parties, interference in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for clarification in the ends of justice would be permissible.
15. In "Jan Muhammad Khan v. Shah Mir Hussain and others" (1985 SCM R 2029), it was held that interference in the concurrent findings of fact will only be permissible, if the documents were misread by the Courts below or erroneous conclusions were drawn on misreading of documents.
16. In "Shah Gul and others v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others" (1990 SCM R 110), it was ruled, that interference with the findings of fact of Court below will not be permissible unless the findings of fact was based on misreading of evidence or have been arrived at by the overlooking some material evidence or if the material circumstances were overlooked by the Courts below.
17. In "Mohibullah Khan v. Sadiq Khan" (1986 SCMR 120), it was held, that if the concurrent findings of facts were found to have been arrived at by ignoring evidence, interference in revision would be permissible.
18. From the rule given in the precedent cases noted supra, it is evident, that interference in revisional jurisdiction is permissible, only, if the findings of the Courts below are based on misreading of the evidence, nonreading of the evidence, misinterpretation of the documentary evidence on record, omission to consider material documents on record, omission to consider material circumstances effecting decision on merits, or if findings suffer from perversity of reasoning. Looking into the present case, it is observed that the real issue was, as to whether the haveli in question was located in Khasra No,10i7 or in any other Khasra number. The learned Courts below, relied on Exh.P-1, which only show that the land in Khasra No,1017 belongs to respondents Nos.1 to 11 and they were in self-occupation thereof. It neither show occupation of the petitioner in any part thereof nor existence of Haveli therein. This being so, the two Courts below, not only misread the document but also ignored the material circumstances and issue arising in the suit necessary for the determination of the real controversy. Without concluding that the Haveli exist in any part of Khasra No,1017, no decree on the plea of title could be allowed to the respondents. It was thus a case, in which appointment of local commission was necessary. It is appropriate that Tehsildar should have been appointed to make spot inspection, to identify the location of the Haveli and to report, in which Khasra number the same was located. As candidly conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner, that if the Haveli is found to be located in Khasra No,1017, the petitioner would have no objection to the restoration of land to respondents but if the same is not found to be located in Khasra No,1017, the respondents will not be able to succeed. Since the Courts below, ignored the material issue arising in the suit and based their decision on misreading of record and on extraneous assumptions, therefore, the findings recorded cannot sustain.
19. In this situation, the case will have to be remanded for determination of the question noted herein above. It cannot be overlooked that the important question need further inquiry while the parties are in litigation for number of years, therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice to remit the file to learned trial Court and instead the interest of justice will require, that the file be sent to learned District Judge, for appointment of commission and decision of the appeal after his report.
20. For the reasons above this revision is allowed, the judgment of the first Appellate Court is set aside, with the result, that the appeal of the petitioner will be deemed to be pending. The learned District Judge will appoint some Tehsildar for spot inspection and to report as to the exact location of the haveli. He will be directed to report, as to whether the haveli in issue, exis in Khasra No,1017 or in Khasra No,1018. After the report of the commission, the appeal will be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law within three months. No order as to costs.