2013 PLP 497 (YLR)

SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.

This revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below whereby the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 13-4-2009 and the same was maintained and upheld by the learned lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 24-3-2010.

2. Short and essential facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs have brought a Suit bearing No.247/1 of 1987 against the petitioners/defendants for a declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit-land details of which have been given in the heading of the plaint and the petitioners/defendants have no right in. In the alternate they also prayed for possession and permanent injunction and for the recovery of Rs.20,000 as mesne profits. The suit was contested by the petitioners/defendants by filing their written statements and the pleadings of the parties gave birth to the issues mentioned in the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Both the parties produced their evidence in respect of their respective claims and after hearing their learned counsel, the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs against the petitioners/defendants vide his short judgment and decree dated 12-11-1990 and on appeal, the aforesaid judgment and decree was set aside by the learned Additional District Judge, Swabi vide judgment and decree dated 13-2-1996 and remanded the case back to the trial Court for re-writing the judgment. After remand the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs was again decreed by the trial Court vide his judgment and decree dated 3-12-1996 against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioners/defendants but at this time the same was dismissed by the learned lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 28-6-1999. Dissatisfied from the above judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the petitioners/defendants filed Civil Revision No.344 of 1999 before this Court which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 25-5-2005 by this Court, the concluding para of the same is reproduced as under:-- "I, therefore, accept this Civil Revision, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court dated 28-6-1999, that of the learned Original Court dated 3-12-1996, and remand the case back to the learned District Judge for further proceedings in accor-dance with law, with direction to the parties to appear before him on 16-6-2005. Parties are left to bear their own costs for the stage of Civil Revision while the costs at other stages shall follow the event, or as may be ordered by the Court".

3. After the receipt of the file, learned lower Appellate Court through a short order dated 14-6-2006 remanded this case again to the trial Court, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:-- "As the judgment of original civil court was also set aside by the august Peshawar High Court Peshawar, therefore, case in hand is hereby remanded back to the learned lower court to meet the observation mentioned in the judgment of august Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 25-5-2005 and then to decided the case afresh in accordance with law".

4. After remand, Sabzali Khan Patwari Halqa and Javed Iqbal ADK were examined as RDW-01 and RDW-02 and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Civil Judge-II, Swabi vide judgment and decree dated 13-4-2009 passed a decree as prayed for in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs against the petitioners/defendants. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid findings of the trial Court, the petitioners/defendants have preferred an Appeal bearing No.18/13 of 2009 which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Swabi vide his judgment and decree dated 24-3-2010. Hence the instant revision petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case with their able assistance.

6. Perusal of oral as well as the documentary evidence in the shape of revenue record of the suit-land available on file shows that the respondents/plaintiffs are owners of the suit-land while the petitioners/defendants are their tenants at-will. Moreover, appreciation of the above evidence leads me to hold that the respondents/plaintiffs had fully sub-stantiated their claim through cogent and conclusive evidence and on the other hand no solid, cogent and reliable evidence either oral or documentary has been produced by the petitioners/defendants to rebut the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs. Thus in view of the evidence on record I am of the considered view that the findings of both the two Courts below on all issues being based on proper appreciation, are well founded. Both the impugned judgments and decrees neither suffer from miscarriage of justice, nor are the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence on record. I also find that the learned two Courts below have neither exercised its discretion not vested in it by law nor have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it by law or in the exercise of jurisdiction have acted illegality or with material irregularity.

7. Resultantly, I find no scope to interfere in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below and the same being well founded are maintained and revision petition in hand being devoid of force, is dismissed. KMZ/355/P Petition dismissed.