2017 PLP 73 (CLCN)

AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.

Through this civil revision petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot whereby appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 15.10.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Sialkot whereby suit for Possession through pre-emption filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs petitioners filed a suit on 23.01.1990 to pre-empt the sale of land in favour of defendant No.1 through registered Sale Deed registered on 25.1.1989. Written statement was filed. Suit was contested. Learned trial court framed the issues and invited the parties to produce their evidence. Both the parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence. Learned trial court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.2002. Appeal was preferred, which also met with the same fate vide judgment and decree dated 2.1.2010 passed by the learned lower appellate court. Hence, this civil revision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the suit relates to the interregnum period, therefore, both the courts below fell in error while dismissing the suit and the appeal on wrong assumptions of law. Prays for acceptance of this revision petition.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/vendees argues that findings recorded by both the courts below are in accordance with law and there is no defect in the same and revision is not maintainable. Prays for dismissal of the same.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

6. The question determinable in this case that suit filed in the interregnum period being pending on the date when judgment reported as "Haji Rana Muhammad Shabbir Ahmad Khan v. Government of Punjab Province, Lahore" (PLD 1994 Supreme Court 1) was made effective from 31.12.1993 declaring subsection (2) of section 35 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 against the injunctions of Islam as the Talb-e-Muwathebat was required to be mentioned in the plaint by giving time, date and place of Talbs including the name of the witnesses and proved through evidence. Admittedly, neither Talbs required under the law have been pleaded nor proved, therefore, I have no reason to disagree with the findings recorded by the learned courts below.

7. When there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below after complete and thorough examination of the evidence produced by both the parties, this Court cannot substitute the same unless there is some misreading and non-reading of evidence or some procedural defect fatal to the case on the part of the courts below but no such misreading, non-reading or procedural defect has been highlighted, nor I find the same in the findings recorded by the Courts below, therefore, no case for interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 115, of the C.P.C. has been made out. Resultantly, in the light of judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "Muhammad Ali and 7 others v. Mst. Humera Fatima and 2 others" (2013 SCMR 178), this revision petition being not maintainable stands dismissed. WA/S-59/L Petition dismissed.