P L D 1993 Karachi 26 (PLP)

, On the above pleadings of the parties the following issues were settled (1) Whether small portion of plot Survey No.21 - Sheet L ' Y-8 was given to ?????????? the wife of the defendant No.1 (viz. Mst. Khatija by way of fight as ?????????? alleged)? (2)??? Whether the suit is bad in law for non-joiner of necessary party? (3)??? Whether the, Plaintiffs were entitled to collect the rent of. the suit ?????????? premises, if so, what is effect? (4)??? Whether. the cause of action arose to the plaintiffs as against the ?????????? defendants? (5) Whether the sale-deed of the suit plot was obtained by fraud or was ????????????????? obtained without co n*sideration? 10 (6) Tomhat relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled? (7) What should the decree be? Applicant Muhammad Anwar was examined as Ext.1 and Ext.5 and he produced registered sale-dee4 as Ext.1/A. Thereafter, respondent Abdul Sattar was examined as -Ext.2 he produced power of attorney and true copy of plaint in Suit No.1320 of 1978, legal notice, reply notice and counter-affidavit in Suit No.1320 of 1978 as Exh.2/A -to 2/E respectively. Respondents also examined P.Ws. Moosa and Ibrahim Muhammad, as Exts. 3 and 4 respectively and closed their side. Thereafter, Applicant Haji Noor Muhammad was examined as Exh. 6 -and D.W. M. Akram as Ext. 7 and they closed their side. On -this evidence the trial Court decreed the suit of the respondents taking all the issues together and finding them against the present applicants. Being aggrieved, the applicants filed the appeal which was also dismissed. Hencethis Revision Application. ????????????????? I have' heard the learned counsel for the parties. At the very/outset the counsel for applicants has pointed out that one Ghulam Muhammad 'Chishti was the attesting witness of the impugned sale-deed and . that applicant had summoned this witness to give evidence. However, the said witness sent an application for adjournment as he, being an M.N.A. at the relevant time was busy with the Assembly session. and could not attend the Court. The Advocate for applicants then moved an application for examination of this witness on commission. This application was. opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents And was rejected by the trial Court: The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that by this order the trial Court 'has shut off the applicants from bringing on record the evidence to support the sale-deed. He has further pointed out. that an effort was again made by the applicants during the pendency of appeal when they moved an application under Order XLI, rule 27, C.P.C. for examining the said witness, who by that time ceased to be the M.N.A. Even this application was opposed by the Advocate for respondents and was rejected. The above facts on the face of it show that the two Courts below have erred in not allowing the said prayer of the applicants. The circumstances show that it was not within the powers of the applicants to bring this witness to Court at Karachi and t ' therefore the prayer to examine the witness on commission should have been allowed. The learned counsel for the respondents insisted that even on this material the present Revision Application be heard on merits., as according to him the burden to prove fraud in execution of sale-deed was on the plaintiffs (Respondents);- and that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the fraud has been committed in the present case. 1, therefore, proceeded to hear the case on merits. is:concurrent finding of fact given by the two Courts below and this-Court, ,therefore, *in exercise of revisional jurisdiction would not probe into faqts. He has placed.reliance on the case . of Outab Din v-. Settle I m ent and Rehabilitation Commission etc. .1982 SCMR 8,

45. In this case their Lordships have held that the High, Court in exercise of its limited Constitutional jurisdiction will not set aside the concurrent findings of Settlement Authorities. There is no denying this principle of law