2005 PLP 2446 (YLR)

The present revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. has been filed to call in question the judgment and decree dated 20-11-1997 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 27-6-1994 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner was affirmed.

2. The facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are to the effect, that Sarwar Ali Shah and other plaintiffs/ petitioners herein had instituted a suit alleging therein that they were owners of four Marla plot situated in Khasra No.1465, Khewat No.3246, Khatuni No.3723 on Chaman Shah Road Shahazada Shaheed Colony, Gujranwala as per record of rights, pertaining to the year 1983-84. The boundaries of the plot in question have been described in paragraph 2 of the plaint. It was further asserted that their father Syed Rasool Shah and their uncle Muhammad Ali Shah real brother and son of Gulab Shah earlier owned this plot but father of plaintiff Syed Rasool Shah obtained a preliminary decree for partition on 11-11-1979, which had been executed on 1-3-1983. Syed Rasool Shah father of the plaintiff and the plaintiffs had been in possession of the plot but in 1987 the defendants/respondents tried to occupy it and raised their construction thereon. They laid some building material on the plot of the plaintiffs/petitioners and filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against Mst. Asia Bibi/defendant/respondent No.1 and an interim injunction had been issued. Defendant No.1/respondent No.1 had taken the stand that her son and daughter/ respondents Nos.2 and 3 had purchased the plot through a registered sale-deed dated 10-9-1987 and an application for temporary injunction was allowed by the civil Court but the learned District Judge on appeal set aside the same vide his order dated 25-5-1988. The defendants occupied the. plot forcibly and plaintiffs had withdrawn their previous suit with the permission to file afresh. The plaintiffs/petitioners had prayed for that decree for possession be passed in their favour.

3. The defendants/respondents had contested the suit. They filed their written statement contending that respondents Nos.2 and 3 had purchased the disputed plot by means of a registered sale-deed dated 10-9-1997 and raised construction thereon.

4. From the factual controversy appearing on pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- (1) Whether the suit is not competent in its present form'? OPD (2) Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi and cause of action to file the suit'? OPD (3) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their words and conduct to file the suit'? OPD (4) Whether the suit is bad for mis joinder of necessary parties'? OPD (5) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, if so what is the correct valuation'? OPD (6) Whether the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are bona fide purchasers without notice and have raised construction if so, to what (sic) (7) Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit property and entitled to its possession'? OPP (8) Relief.

5. After recording and appreciating the evidence of the parties, pro and contra the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide its order dated 27-6-1994. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the lower Appellate Court had also met with the same fate.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are based upon no evidence and the same are result of surmises and conjectures. He relied upon the case of Sardar Muhammad v. Ch. Muhammad Bashir 2000 CLC 1040.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/decree holders opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners contending that there is a concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners and this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the same. He placed reliance to the cases of Abdul Hameed v. Ghulam Muhammad and others 1987 SCMR 1005; Sheikh Muhammad Bashir Ali and others v. Sufi Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din 1996 SCMR 813; Abdul Hakeem v. Habibullah and 11 others 1997 SCMR 1139 and John through legal heirs v. Abdul Majeed 2000 CLC 37.

8. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties perused the record and examined the case-law referred to by them.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to make out a case-law to bring this petition within the provisions of section 115, C.P.C., neither has pointed out any illegality, jurisdictional defect or misreading and non-reading of the evidence.

10. After evaluating and appreciating evidence of the parties, both the Courts below concurrently gave findings on question of fact and this Court on its own appraisal of evidence cannot set aside the findings of the two Courts below and in such circumstances no interference can be called for as laid down in the case of Sh. Muhammad Bashir Ali (supra).

11. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition being devoid of force is dismissed. H.B.T./5-214/L Revision dismissed.