2002 PLP 797 (MLD)

Abdul Wahid Chaudhry for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th September, 2001. Province of Punjab, through the invocation of revisional jurisdiction of this Court, under section 115, C.P.C. has called in question the judgment and decree, dated 23-2‑1991, whereby the learned Additional District Judge. Sargodha, dismissed the appeal and maintained the judgment and decree, dated 24‑7‑1989, through which the learned Civil Judge, Sargodha, partly decreed the suit.

2. Facts culminating to the filing of the present revision petition are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit, for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner to the effect that the demand of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.60,000 regarding land revenue and water rates for crops Kharif 1971 to Rabi 1978 is illegal and same may be declared as void and ineffective, with a further prayer that the petitioner be restrained from recovering the said amount from him. The petitioner/defendant contested the suit by way of filing the written statement alleging therein that in fact a sum of Rs.63,433.18 is outstanding against the respondent and they also objected to the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. Initially, the plaint was rejected by the learned Civil Judge, but on an appeal, filed by the respondent, the suit was remanded by the learned Appellate Court. Again the suit was disposed of by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree, dated 14‑11‑1987, but the same was also set aside by the learned Appellate Court and the suit was remanded to the learned Trial Court for fresh decision.

3. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, certain issues were framed and the learned Civil Judge after recording the evidence of the parties, both oral as well as documentary, partly decreed the suit in favour of the respondent, but it was declared that he is bound to pay Rs.4,702.80 to the petitioner vide judgment and decree, dated 24‑7‑1989, which was assailed by the petitioner the learned Appellate Court but the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the findings of the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 23‑2‑1991, hence, the present revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are against law and facts of the case inasmuch as both the Courts have grossly misread the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent has deposited the balance amount of Rs.7,753.80 with the petitioner. He has contended that the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below are not liable to be interfered in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, hence, both the judgments do not call for any interference.

5. According to Exh.D.2, which is the statement prepared by "Wasal Baki Nawees" a total outstanding amount against the respondent as arrears comes to Rs.7,753.80. The petitioner cannot wriggle out of the rigour of document produced by the petitioner himself. Moreover, it was prepared by a public functionary, working under the control of the petitioner. The said document was produced by the petitioner himself, which was admitted in evidence and exhibited as Exh.D.2. The petitioner after relying upon a document and submitting the same in their evidence, cannot retract from their stance and now allege that the said document is not binding upon 'them. There is no cavil to the proposition that the petitioner is bound by the document produced by them in the evidence. Interestingly the same has not denied by them before the learned Appellate Court or in their grounds of appeal.

6. Upon examination of both the judgments rendered by the Courts below. I find that the same have been passed in accordance with law and no exception can be taken by the petitioner. Both the Courts below have taken note of every aspect of the case and the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that only a sum of Rs.4,702.80 is outstanding against the respondent. Judgments of both the Courts below, specially by the learned Civil Judge, is well‑reasoned and f do not find any reason to differ with the said findings.

7. It is settled law that the findings on question of fact or law recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction unless those findings suffer from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularities. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Rafique v. Aamer Shahzad and others (1999 YLR 610).

8. The concurrent findings of fact were recorded by both the Courts below which are based on proper appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, produced by the respective parties before the learned trial Court. No case of misreading and non‑reading of evidence has been made out, neither any legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel even during the arguments. There was neither material' irregularities committed, nor illegal exercise of jurisdiction nor failure of exercise of jurisdiction by both the Courts below.

9. It is settled law that concurrent findings of facts, based on evidence, are not liable to be interfered in the exercise of jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Reliance is placed on Abdul Rahim and another v. Mst. Janatay Bibi and others (2000 SCMR 346), Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others (2000 SCMR 431), Aziz Ullah Khan and others v. Gul Muhammad Khan (2000 SCMR 1647). Altaf Hussain v. Abdul Hameed and Abdul Majeed through Legal Heirs and another (2000 SCMR 314) and Haji Noor Muhammad v Abdul Ghani and 2 others (2000 SCMR 329).

10. As a result of above discussion, the revision petition has no merits and while confirming the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, I hereby dismiss the revision petition, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T.IP‑74/L Revision dismissed.