Courts below could not be reversed in exercise of revisional Jurisdiction as conferred upon the High Court under section 115, C.P.C.

6. Now the argument that at this stage the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below cannot be interfered with under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 merely because different view is possible to be taken is considered and dilated upon and in this regard sufficient is to observe that while dealing with this proposition the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in various judgments including Nazim-Ud-Din and others v. Sheikh Zia-Ul-Qamar and others (2016 SCMR 24), Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others (2010 SCMR 1630), Ghulam Muhammad and 3 others v. Ghulam Ali (2004 SCMR 1001) and Habib Khan and others v. Mst. Bakhtmina and others (2004 SCMR 1668) has invariably held: 

„5. It is well-entrenched legal proposition that concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below could not be reversed in exercise of revisional Jurisdiction as conferred upon the High Court under section 115, C.P.C. and learned ASC has rightly referred and relied upon various authorities as mentioned in the preceding paragraph but it should not be ignored that such concurrent findings, cannot be termed as “sacrosanct” and could be reversed if the same are based on insufficient evidence, misreading of evidence, non-consideration of material piece of evidence, erroneous assumption of facts and patent error of law. We are not persuaded to agree with Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, learned ASC that concurrent findings must be kept intact irrespective of the fact whether the same are erroneous or otherwise.‟

Part of Judgment of 

LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR 

Civil Revision
652-11

2018 LHC 667