2006 PLP 637 (CLC)

IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.

This civil revision impugns the judgment and decree dated 24-1-2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Mardan at Takht Bhai, whereby the appeal arising from judgment and decree, dated 19-5-2004, passed by Civil Judge, Takht Bhai, Mardan has been dismissed.

2. Shortly narrated the facts are, that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents I to 3 namely, Shahzada (deceased) and Shamshad respondent No.4 had instituted rival pre-emption suits on 23-7-1998 and 21-9-1998 respectively, against the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners, namely, Zaman Shah in respect of sale Mutation No.492. attested on 25-10-1997 regarding land measuring 2 Kanals, in the area of Mauna Lund Khawar Tehsil Takht Bhai, District Mardan. Both the suits were consolidated and contested on all grounds, legal as well as factual. Relevant issues were framed and after recording such evidence as the parties wished to adduce, learned trial Judge dismissed suit of respondent No.4, while suit of Shahzada, predecessor-in-interest of respondents I to 3 was decreed against petitioners, through judgment and decree against petitioners, through judgment and decree dated 19-5-2004. An appeal was preferred thereagainst, which did not succeed. The same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Takht Bhai at Mardan by judgment, dated 24-1-2005.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are illegal, against the facts and suffer from the vice of misreading and non-reading of the evidence on the record. He also contended that the finding returned on issue No.2, regarding performance of "Talbs" is wrong and in total disregard to the material on record. In the lest limb of arguments, the learned counsel urged that the appellate Court has given no issue-wise findings as provided under Order XL1, rule 31, C.P.C., which has resulted in complete failure of justice.

4. Having considered the matter from all angles, I am of the view that the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are unexceptionable and do not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity, warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The finding of fact recorded by the trial Court on issue No.2 regarding performance of 'Talbs' and affirmed by the appellate Court are based on correct and fair appraisal of evidence and the grounds urged stand conclusively determined by the judgments of the Courts below. Needless to emphasise that in case the trial Court has exercised jurisdiction which is upheld by the appellate Court, then this Court seldom interferes unless and until the discretion is exercised arbitrarily. This Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in concurrent findings of Courts below while exercising jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. unless and until judgments of the Courts below are result of misreading or non-reading of evidence or decision of the case is in violation of parameters prescribed by the superior Courts. Maqsood Ahmad through his father v. Ali Naqi Shah 2002 CLC 1125 and Hidayatullah Khan v. Ajmal Khan 2006 CLC

35. Attending to the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioners regarding non-compliance of requirements of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C., no doubt, it is true that the characteristic of a good judgment is that it must be self-evident and self-explanatory, in other words, it must contain reasons that justify conclusions arrived at and these reasons should be such that a disinterested reader can find them convincing at least reasonable. In the instant case, all the legal formalities had been duly complied with and no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioners. The judgment of the appellant has recorded keeping in view the provisions contained in Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C.

5. In view the above, I find that neither any non-reading or misreading of evidence nor any material irregularity nor any jurisdictional defect could be pointed out to justify interference. The civil .revision is devoid of force. The same is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./30/P Revision dismissed.