Settled principle that when the concurrent findings suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence or material illegality and irregularity, the same can be rectified by exercising supervisory jurisdiction.

5. First of all, this Court deals with the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that concurrent findings on facts have been recorded and reappraisal of evidence cannot be made while exercising powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; in this regard, it is observed that the concurrent findings when are found result of misreading and non-reading of evidence or result of material irregularity, the same can be interfered with in exercise of supervisory revisional jurisdiction. In this regard reliance is placed on Habib Khan and others v. Mst. Bakhtmina and others (2004 SCMR 1668), Ghulam Muhammad and 3 others v. Ghulam Ali (2004 SCMR 1001) and Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others (2010 SCMR 1630), wherein it has invariably been held:

 ’17. Indeed, the concurrent findings of three Courts below on a question of fact, if not based on misreading or non-reading of evidence and not suffering from any illegality or material irregularity effecting the merits of the case, are not open to question at the revisional stage, but where on record the position is contrary to it, then the revisional Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. or this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, are not denuded of their respective powers to interfere and upset such findings.’ In view of the above, it is settled principle that when the concurrent findings suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence or material illegality and irregularity, the same can be rectified by exercising supervisory jurisdiction. 

 Part of Judgment 

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision (Against Interim Order) Decree US. 115 C.P.C
1227602.888-11

2017 LHC 4327