Exercising revisional jurisdiction provided under section 115 of Code, 1908

8. The argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the concurrent findings of the Courts below cannot be disturbed by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction provided under section 115 of Code, 1908 is not tenable as both the judgments and decrees having been found to be the result of misreading and nonreading of evidence as well as non-adherence to the law applicable in this regard are not sustainable in the eye of law. It is correct that normally this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by two Courts below, but when there is gross misreading and non-reading of evidence and patent violation of the law is floating on the surface of such concurrent findings, this Court cannot shut its eyes and is always under obligation to rectify the error by interference in such like illegal findings. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments reported as Ghulam Muhammad and 3 others Vs. Ghulam Ali (2004 SCMR 1001) and Mushtari Khan vs. Jehangir Khan (2006 SCMR 1238).

Part of judgement 

 THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE 

Civil Revision
1687955.2715-14

2018 LHC 863