Record that concurrent findings are fraught with legal infirmities hedged in Section 115 of the Code ibid, it becomes the boudan duty of court exercising revisional powers to curb and stifle such illegalities and material irregularities.

12. There is no cavil that revisional jurisdiction is always exercised with great care and caution, while interfering with the concurrent findings of the courts below but such findings are neither sacrosanct nor it is an inflexible rule that despite observing material flaws, the revisional court will abdicate to exercise its jurisdiction. The judgment of both the learned courts below are not based on proper appraisal of evidence and the learned Civil Senior Judge, while dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner has grossly mis-read the evidence as already noted above. The learned lower Appellate Court, while maintaining the judgment of learned Senior Civil Judge also committed a procedural defect. This amounts to a material irregularity on the part of the learned courts below. Thus this Court under Section 115 of The Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) is obliged and fully competent to correct such error in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction contemplated under the said provision of law. When once it is established on the record that concurrent findings are fraught with legal infirmities hedged in Section 115 of the Code ibid, it becomes the boudan duty of court exercising revisional powers to curb and stifle such illegalities and material irregularities. Reliance in this respect if needed, can be placed on “Malik MUHAMMAD KHAQAN versus TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI (KPT) and another” (2008 SCMR 428) and “IMAM DIN and 4 others versus BASHIR AHMED and 10 others” (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 418).

 Part of Judgment 

 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT RAWALPINDI BENCH RAWALPINDI JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision-Civil Revision (Against Decree) u/s. 115, C.P.C.
672-11

2017 LHC 1965