2004 PLP 1661 (CLC)

(1) Has the plaintiff cause of action? (2) Has the plaintiff locus standi? (3) Are the suit shops situated in Mouza Hathala/effect? (4) Is the suit liable to dismissal on account of non-joinder of necessary parties? (5) Is the suit competent in its present form? (6) Is the plaintiff owner in suit shop? (7) Is the defendant bona fide purchaser from the ostensible owner? (8) Relief.

3. Learned Civil Judge, Kulachi, seized of the matter, decided Issues Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 together and found the same in favour of the plaintiff holding that he has succeeded to establish his ownership and possession in respect of suit shops. Resultantly, suit was decreed by means of judgment and decree, dated 25-3-1997. Feeling aggrieved, Appeal bearing No.54/2000 was preferred before learned District Judge, D.I. Khan, which did not succeed and was dismissed through order dated 3-7-2000, giving rise to the filing of instant civil revision.

4. Mr. Rustam Khan Kundi, Advocate for the petitioner mainly contended that judgment and decree, dated 5-4-1908 passed in suit Nasiruddin v. Ajab Khan, has no bearing on the ultimate decision of this case; that plaintiff-respondent was required to produce cogent and convincing evidence in support of his claim and that the reasoning returned on issues under controversy are result of misreading and non reading of evidence on the record and suffer from legal infirmity.

5. Mr. Salahuddin Gandapur, Advocate for respondent No.1 controverted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned judgment and decree whole heartedly.

6. I have heard at length the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the material on record.

7. Although this Court is not called upon to reappraise the evidence on record in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction yet in the interest of justice, I have scanned through the evidence and feel that the findings of both the Courts below are in conformity with the material on record. Both the Courts have rightly clinched the factual controversies, have dealt with the matter in a threadbare manner and came to the conclusion that respondent is owner in possession of suit shops qua the petitioner who is devoid of this status. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have duly been taken care of and dealt with by the Courts below very aptly which are not open to exception. Findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court are based on correct and careful appraisal of evidence and the grounds urged stand conclusively determined by the judgments of the two Courts below. Both the judgments of the Courts below are well-reasoned and have been passed after perusal of evidence .on record. The lower Courts after having discussed the total evidence on record and undertaking in depth study of the oral and documentary evidence on record have found the respondent as owner in possession of the suit shops.

8. Interference in revision with decisions regarding matters which are within the discretion of subordinate Court is not warranted unless order is contrary to the principles governing the exercise of such discretion or the Court had acted perversely or arbitrarily. Improper exercise of discretion may be corrected in appeal but not in revision. Revisional jurisdiction is directed against the irregular exercise, non- exercise or illegal assumption of jurisdiction and not against the conclusion of law or fact not involving question of jurisdiction, however, erroneous they may be. It is settled principle of law that findings recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, under section 115, C.P.C., unless such findings suffer from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularity. Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291.

9. The process of examination of evidence for' upsetting a concurrent finding of fact in exercise of , powers under section 115, C.P.C. in my view is neither permissible nor warranted by law. As earlier pointed out by me, interference with a finding of fact of the Courts below by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. could only be justified if such finding is found to be suffering from misreading of evidence or non-consideration of important and material evidence or the finding is the result of perverse appreciation of evidence of record. A wrong or erroneous conclusion on a question of fact by the Courts below is not open to interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. I may also mention here that the High Court while examining a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. has to attend to the reasons given by the Courts below in support of such finding and misreading, non reading or perverse appreciation of evidence has to be discovered in the reasoning of the Courts below to justify interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

10. For the reasons mentioned above, the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below being based on proper appreciation of evidence are not amenable to interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition being devoid of force is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./187/P Revision petition dismissed.