2014 PLP 1023 (YLR)

SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUND-ZADA, J.

Bakhtawar Shah petitioner/ plaintiff had brought the suit against Abdul Wadood and others respondents/defendants for possession of building known as 'Mehran Public School' and also for damages to the tune of Rs.10,00000 incurred on account of losses caused by the respondents/defendants to the school furniture and other articles and mental torture sustained by him. It was averred in the plaint that the petitioner/ plaintiff purchased the said building from one Imdadullah for sale consideration of Rs.55000 on 28/05/2002 vide agreement No.14-B; that the school building is the ownership of Abdul Wadood respondent/ defendant No.1, therefore, he used to pay monthly rent to him through his son Haroon; that on 26-7-2005 the petitioner/ plaintiff was informed by the school Principal that some unknown persons have damaged the school record and other articles and have occupied the said building; that the petitioner/plaintiff visited the said premises on the next morning and found that Shah Zeb and Aurgnzeb respondents/defendants Nos.3 and 4 to have occupied the said premises and have shifted the school record and furniture etc. to some other place and due to this illegal act of the respondents/ defendants, the petitioner/ plaintiff sustained mental torture and that the respondents/defendants were asked to pay the damages and to the return the school building time and again but they refused. Hence the present suit.

2. The respondents/ defendants appeared in the court and resisted the suit on all grounds, legal as well as factual. The parties were put to trial after framing of six issues from the pleadings. After recording such evidence as the parties wished to adduce, the learned trial Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 28-11-2011 dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff which was maintained in appeal by the learned Addl. District Judge-XIII, Peshawar vide his judgment and decree dated 15-1-2013. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition which is before me for adjudication.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and perused the record.

4. Although this Court is not found to reappraise the evidence on record in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, yet, in the interest of justice, I have gone through the evidence produced by the parties and find that the findings of learned two Courts below are in consonance with the evidence on record and no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioner/ plaintiff, petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim through convincing, reliable and conclusive oral and documentary evidence while the respondents/defendants have satisfactorily rebutted the claim of the petitioner through convincing evidence. Thus, both the Courts below have rightly clinched the factual controversy and have dealt with the matter in a thread bare manner and have come to the concurrent conclusion after due application of independent mind, which needs no interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel has failed to point out any illegality by way of misreading and non-reading of evidence by the learned two Courts below. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court have elaborately discussed every aspect of the case and have dealt with the same in detail, leaving no room for further consideration. It is settled law that findings on question of fact or law recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction unless those findings suffer from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularity. The jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact in revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. is very limited.

5. The process of examination of evidence for upsetting the concurrent findings of fact in exercise of powers under section 115 C.P.C., in my view, is neither permissible nor warranted by law. I may also mention here that the High Court while examining a concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. has to attend the reasons given by the Courts below in support of such findings and misreading, non-reading or perverse appreciation of evidence has to be discovered in reasoning of the Courts below to justify interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Regarding above mentioned findings cases of "Sheikh Muhammad Bashir Ali and others v. Sufi Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din" (1996 SCMR 813), "Rashid Ahmad v. Said Ahmad" (2007 SCMR 926) and "Muhammad Idrees and others v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others" (2010 SCMR 5) are referred to.

6. In view of what has been discussed above, I have come to the conclusion that the learned trial Judge as well as the learned Appellate Court have passed well-reasoned judgments and decrees after proper appraisal of the evidence on the file and thus the same do not at all seem to have been tainted with any illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error to warrant interference by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. Hence, revision petition in hand is without substance, therefore, the same is dismissed in limine. AG/481/P Petition dismissed.