2006 PLP 185 (SCMR)

JAVED IQBAL, J.

This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order, dated 16-10-2003 whereby revision petition preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of learned Additional District Judge dated 1-10-2003 has been kept intact.

2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that "Muhammad Amir the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, filed a suit for possession through pre-emption, against the respondents, qua the land measuring 129 Kanals, 16 Marlas, asserting therein; that the respondents purchased the land through mutation dated 24-1-1995 and got entered an ostensible sale price of Rs.1,95,000 as against the actual sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,

000. It was further the case of the petitioners that they came to know about sale on 11-4-1995 through Muzafar Khan and Allah Ditta and they immediately announced their intention to file the suit, as they are co-sharers, owners of adjacent land and co-sharers in the amenities. The respondents contested the suit, thereby controverting the allegations made in the plaint, which culminated to the framing of the issues. The learned trial Court recorded the evidence of the parties and ultimately dismissed the suit, vide judgment and decree, dated 19-4-2001. The petitioners filed the appeal but without any success, as their appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge". Being aggrieved a revision petition was filed assailing the judgment/decree of the learned Additional District Judge, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Chambers, hence this petition.

3. Ch. Akhtar Ali, learned Advocate-on-Record entered appearance on behalf of petitioner and urged strenuously that the petitioners have substantiated Talbs pursuant to section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 which aspect of the matter escaped the notice of the learned Courts below which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is next contended that the learned Additional District Judge has decided the appeal. in oblivion of the provisions as contended in Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C. and failed to render his findings of all the issues and on this score the judgment was liable to be set aside which aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned High Court without any rhyme or reason.

4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioners, scanned the entire record with the eminent assistance of learned Advocate Supreme Court and perused the judgment of learned trial and Appellate Courts as well as the judgment impugned. It is significant to note that concurrent findings of facts have been recorded by the Courts below which cannot be reversed without any lawful justification which is badly lacking in this case. It is well-entrenched legal proposition that without such justification the concurrent findings of facts cannot be reversed. In this behalf we are fortified by the dictum laid down in cases of Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others 2000 SCMR 431; Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad A Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291 and Muhammad Rashid Ahmed v. Muhammad Siddique PLD 2002 SC 293.

5. A careful scrutiny of the entire record would reveal that even the witnesses of petitioner have not supported his claim. In this regard reference can be made to the statements of Allah Ditta (P.W.3) and Muzaffar Khan (P.W.4). The petitioner has failed miserably to prove Talb-e-Mawatibat by producing any cogent and concrete evidence. The evidence led by him appears to be contrary to his own version. We have also adverted -to the question as to whether the learned Additional District Judge has not given findings on each of the issues as required under Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C. It transpired from scrutiny of judgment of learned Additional District Judge that each issue was not discussed separately but it hardly matters for the simple reason that all the contentions agitated before the learned Additional District Judge has been dilated upon and decided in a comprehensive manner. It is well-settled by now that a judgment which deals with all the points raised, fulfils the requirements of law even though it may not have discussed each issue separately cannot be termed as "illegal or ab initio void" as pressed time and again by the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner. If any reference is required the dictum laid down in Umar Din v. Ghazanfer Ali 1991 SCMR 1816 can be referred.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the judgment impugned being well-based does not warrant interference and the petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused. M.H./M-321/S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.