JAVED IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 24-5-2001 passed by learned Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench) whereby the regular second appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and judgment and decree dated 27-3-1986 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, affirming the judgment/decree dated 7- 5-1984 passed by learned Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, has been kept intact.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that initially a suit for grant of perpetual injunction was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff for restraining the petitioners from interfering in their peaceful possession and illegal encroachment of land measuring 5 Marlas bearing Khasra Nos.424/27/1 and 425/27/2 in Khata No,90/152. In violation of the temporary injunction the petitioner allegedly encroached upon 5 Marlas Of the land in dispute and resultantly amended plaint was filed seeking possession of encroached land. The petitioner contested the suit by raising various legal and factual objections and the claim of respondent/plaintiff was vehemently denied. After framing of issues and recording the evidence pro and contra the suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, by means of judgment and decree dated 7-5-1984. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, vide judgment/decree dated 27-3-1986 which too was assailed by preferring Regular Second Appeal No, 31 of 1986 which also met the same fate, hence this petition.
3. Heard Mr. Altaf Ellahi Sheikh, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners who mainly contended that the documentary evidence such as P,T.D, and Site Plans (Exhs.D-1 and D-2) were never examined In their true perspective rather misread and misconstrued which resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, it is urged emphatically that disputed land was admittedly an evacuee property which aspect of the matter escaped notice of the learned trial and appellate Courts resulting in serious prejudice. It is also argued that undue importance has been given to the report of Local Commissioner, which being defective should have been discarded.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioners in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have minutely perused the judgment passed by learned trial and appellate Courts. We have also gone through the judgment inpugned. The entire evidence has been scanned with the eminent assistance of the learned Advocate Supreme Court. We are of the considered opinion that after having a careful evaluation of entire evidence the suit was decided by the learned trial Court findings whereof were upheld by the Appellate Court and concurred by the learned High Court being well based and strictly in accordance with law and settled norms of justice. The report of Local Commissioner has rightly been considered and relied upon by the forums below and no grave irregularity could be pointed out by the learned Advocate Supreme Court on the basis whereof the report of Local Commissioner could be discarded. We are conscious of the fact that concurrent findings are not sacrosanct and can be reversed when such findings are based on insufficient evidence, misreading of evidence, non- consideration of material evidence, erroneous assumption of facts, patent errors of law or consideration of inadmissible evidence or something so outrageous or so gross as to shock the very basis of justice. The learned Advocate Supreme Court, however, could not convince us that it is a case of misreading or non-reading of evidence or there is any jurisdictional or legal flaw. The factual controversy that petitioner has encroached upon 5 Marlas of the disputed land has been resolved after proper appreciation of evidence and we cannot reappraise the same as this Court does not undertake this task unless a substantial departure from settled principles concerning appreciation of evidence has occurred and moreso when the Court of first instance and the Court of appeal arrives at concurrent findings of fact after scrutinizing the evidence this Court does not interfere in such findings save in most exceptional circumstances which are lacking in this case. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum as laid down in cases titled Abdul Majid v. State (1971 SCM R 31), British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Razak-Abdul Kader (PLD 1967 SC 68), Shamshad Ali Shah v. Hassan Shah (PLD 1964 SC 143); Sarfaraz Ali Khan v. Crown (PLD 1951 FC 41); Muhammad Sharif v. Abdul Majid (1986 SCM R 190) and Sadiq Jan v. Muhammad Rashid (1985 SCM R 860). It is also well entrenched legal proposition that this Court does not interfere in the conclusion of the High Court which appears to be based upon adequate evidence both oral and documentary and is given in a detailed well-considered judgment and is supported by cogent reasons and careful analysis of relevant material. If any authority is needed reference can be made to cases titled 'Chair Din v. Qudrat Ullah (1986 SCM R 763); Siraj Din v. Naseeruddin (1977 SCM R 511); Jalal v. State (1972 SCM R 273) and Md. Anwarullah Mazumdar v. Tamina Bibi (1971 SCM R 94).
5. In the light of foregoing discussion we are of the view that impugned judgment being free from any illegality or infirmity does not warrant any interference. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.