2010 PLP 400 (CLC)

HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.

Through this civil revision petition the petitioner assailed the judgment and decree dated 16-7-2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Taunsa whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 16-5-2007 of learned trial Court Civil Judge 1st Class, Taunsa by which the declaratory suit of the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner/plaintiff filed civil suit for declaration claiming him to be lawful owner in possession of suit-land measuring 56 Kanals, 8 Marlas falling in Khata No.71 of Mutation No.718 situated at Mauza Pehar, Tehsil Taunsa Sharif through which land measuring 20 Kanals were transferred in the name of defendants/respondents Nos.1 and 2 in civil suit the petitioner/plaintiff challenged Mutation No.718 dated 20-3-2000 which was sanctioned in favour of respondents/defendants Nos.1 and 2 being based on fraud, collusion, illegal without payment of sale price, having no legal effect on his rights, liable to be cancelled. The respondents/ defendants submitted written statement and contested the suit. They controverted the whole averments of the plaint and denied the allegations of fraud etc. levelled by the petitioner/plaintiff and claimed to be bona fide purchaser. However, respondent No.3 was proceeded against ex parte.

3. After framing of issues and recording of evidence of both the parties the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the judgment of the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Taunsa before the learned Additional District Judge, Taunsa which also met the same fate. Now the petitioner has challenged the judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below through this revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was owner of agricultural land measuring 56 Kanals, 8 Marlas situated in Mauza Pahar Tehsil Taunsa Sharif District D.G. Khan which was sold' through the oral sale agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he made a conditional agreement with respondents Nos.1 and 2, that the respondents will clear the debt of Agricultural Bank whereby the property in dispute was mortgaged with the Bank against some loan. Learned counsel submits that respondents Nos.1 and 2 told the petitioner that they have cleared the loan and believing them the plaintiff recorded his statement that on the statement of the petitioner Mutation No.718 was entered and attested; that the present petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit assailing the mutation which was contested by respondents Nos.1 and 2 filing written statement, issues- were framed, evidence of both the parties was recorded, suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16-5-2007, that the petitioner/plaintiff filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Taunsa Sharif which was dismissed on 16-7-2009. Learned counsel makes reliance on 1992 SCMR 832 with regard to Issue No.1.

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

6. Learned trial Court as well as learned lower appellate-Court after best appraisal of evidence decided the case against the present petitioner. The learned trial Court after discussing each and every aspect of the case, after appraisal of evidence in detail dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner. The findings with regard to facts of the plaint were upheld by the learned lower appellate Court in his judgment and decree dated 16-7-2009. The findings of the two Courts below on facts and question of law are concurrent, no misreading or non-reading of evidence is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is established view of honourable Supreme Court where findings of trial Court and lower appellate Court are concurrent howsoever erroneous these findings may be cannot be interfered with by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C. unless same findings of two Courts below suffer from jurisdictional defect. Reliance can safety be made on 2007 SCMR 926(a), 2007 SCMR 870(e), PLD 2005 SC 418, 1994 SCMR 818, 2003 SCMR 83, 2009 SCMR 286 and PLD 1988 SC

625. In all these cases it is held that concurrent findings unless there is some jurisdictional defect or illegality or martial irregularity with regard to facts and law cannot be disturbed by High Court exercising power under section 115, C.P.C. This civil revision is meritless having no force is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./P-36/L Revision dismissed.