P L D 2000 Supreme Court 839 (PLP)

(On appeal from the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 14‑1‑1997, passed in Civil Revision No.347‑D of 1994/BWP.). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Revision‑‑ Disputed question of fact‑‑‑Finding of lower Courts at variance‑‑‑Appraisal of evidence on record in exercise of revisional jurisdiction ‑‑‑Such disputed question was dealt with in detail firstly by Lower Appellate Court and then by Revisional Court‑‑‑Contention raised by the petitioner was that the finding of fact was not a concurrent finding and the same was not liable to be reversed in revision‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Where two Courts below differed on the issue of fact, it was open for the High Court to appraise the evidence and record his own conclusion after proper appraisal of evidence on record‑‑‑Appraisal of evidence so made did not suffer from any legal infimrity‑‑‑No justifiable exception could be taken to the conclusions recorded in the judgment of High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. ORDER KHALIL‑UR‑REHMAN KHAN, J.‑‑‑This petition is directed against the judgment dated 14‑1‑1991 of the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur; whereby the Civil Revision filed by the respondents was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 6‑3‑1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar accepting the appeal and decreeing the suit for possession of land through pre‑emption was set aside and that of the Civil Judge, Bahawalnagar dated 3‑3‑1983 dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner was restored.

2. The sole question agitated before us was whether the suit land is an urban immovable property or not, This controversy is subject‑matter of Issue No.2. Learned trial Court returned the fording under this issue to the effect that the suit property was urban immovable property and not agricultural land. This finding was reversed by the learned Appellate Court but in revision the finding of the learned trial Court, was upheld and restored.

3. Admittedly, the question raised is a question of fact which was dealt with to detail firstly by the learned first Appellate Court and then by the revisional Court. The grievance of the learned counsel was that the finding of the learned Appellate Court should not have been reversed in revision. The finding of fact was not a concurrent finding that the same was not liable to be A reversed in revision ordinarily. Learned two Courts below having differed on the said issue, it was open for learned Judge of the High Court to appraise the evidence and record his own conclusion after proper appraisal of the evidence on record. This was precisely done by the .learned Judge of the High Court and by giving cogent reasons and applying the principles enunciated by this Court in decided cases he recorded the conclusion that the plot in question had assumed urban character and as such was not liable to be pr;‑empted. It was noted that the plot measuring 1 Kanal 12 Marlas had roads on three sides and a plot on the fourth side. The same was purchased for residential purposes and is situated in a rectangle which has been included in the municipal limits of town. It was since before purchase recorded as "Banjar Kham" in the revenue record and according to Exh. P.3 and Exh. P.4 the land even prior to the sale was described as "Ghair Mumkin Bhatta". It was further observed that the evidence on record accepting bald statement of P. Ws. that it was agricultural land did not warrant drawing of such a conclusion and that in the aforenoted circumstances the finding could not be reversed by observing that village Islampura was an agricultural village and that major part of the village was not included in the Municipal Committee, Bahawalnagar. Learned Judge of the High Court in the impugned judgment also examined decided cases to support his conclusions. The appraisal of the evidence so made does not suffer from any legal infirmity. No justifiable exception, therefore, can be taken to the conclusions recorded in the impugned judgment. This petition, therefore, fails.

4. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑29/S Petition dismissed