1991 PLP 587 (MLD)

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

S.115

Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of

No misreading or non-reading of evidence by Courts below had been pointed out

Factum of subject-matter of dispute, had not been denied in written statement

Plea raised by defendants lied not been believed by two Courts below for good reasons

Concurrent findings of fact of Courts below based on good reasons would not justify interference in revisional jurisdiction, especially in absence of any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the judgments and decrees of Courts below

Revision dismissed in circumstances. Kh. Abdul Hameed Butt for-Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. On 20-9-1984, Raja respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of gold weighing 8 tolas, 3 mashas and 6 ratties and silver weighing 13 tolas or Rs.16,718 as value thereof, against Rai Batay Khan and Samanda Khan petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge Karanwala. It.was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff had entrusted gold 8 tolas, 3 mashas and 6 rattles and 13 tolas silver to Rai Batay Khan petitioner vide receipt. But he has refused to return the same to him. The suit was resisted whereon 5 issues were framed. The plaintiff/respondent produced Sadiq P.W.1, Mulla P.W.2. He himself appeared as P.W.3. To rebut this evidence the defendant produced Daim D.W. 1, Mankora D.W. 2 and Muhammad Akram D.W.

3. Batay Khan himself appeared as D.W. 4. _Samanda respondent appeared as D.W.

5. The trial Court decreed the suit on 24-9-1987. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Faisalabad on 12-7-1990, hence this revision.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parties had referred the dispute to an arbitrator who gave the award which was acted upon, so, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to set-aside an award in a suit brought by one of the parties. The remedy for that party was to get the award set aside under section 32 of the Arbitration Act; that the learned trial Court has not properly examined the documentary evidence and that the findings of the Courts suffered from misreading/non-reading of material evidence.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I do not agree with him. I find that the respondent's suit was/is for the recovery of ornaments, which he had entrusted to Rai Batay Khan petitioner or value thereof. No prayer for setting aside the award has been made in the suit. So, the suit filed by the petitioners was not hit by the provisions of section 32 of the Arbitration Act. The learned counsel has .not been able to point out any misreading/non-reading of evidence by .the Courts below. The factum of the ornaments having been entrusted by Raja respondent to Rai Batay Khan petitioner has not been denied in the written statement. The plea raised by the petitioners/defendants that the ornaments were given by the plaintiff/respondent to Rai Batay Khan petitioner as a security for some dispute between him and Samanda petitioner and that consequent to the decision of an arbitrator the petitioner had given the ornaments to Samanda petitioner No. 2 has not been believed by the Courts below for good reasons. I do not see any reason to disagree with the findings arrived at by the Courts below. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading/non-reading of evidence by the Courts below.. I do not see any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defeat in the impugned judgments and decrees. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is dismissed in limine. . AA./B-227/L Revision dismissed.