1990 PLP 912 (MLD)

This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17‑9‑1989 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi Central whereby dismissing the appeal and affirming judgment dated 30‑8‑1984 and decree dated 27‑10‑1989 passed by Ist Senior Civil Judge, Karachi. The facts leading to the filing of the above revision are that the respondent Society filed a suit for eviction and possession on the ground that it had a plot in dispute measuring 185 square yards in possession of the petitioners since 1956. The respondent averred that petitioners were licensees in respect of the plot in dispute and the licence was withdrawn. The petitioners contested the suit. The trial Court framed appropriate issues. The parties led evidence in support of their versions. The trial Court decided issues No.1, 4 and 6 in the affirmative. Issue No.3 in the negative and decreed the suit vide judgment dated 30‑8‑1984. The petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30‑8‑1984 and decree dated 27‑10‑1984 of the Ist Senior Civil Judge, Karachi filed appeal before the District Judge, Karachi which was ultimately heard by the IInd Additional District Judge, Karachi Central. The IInd Additional District Judge, Karachi Central, by his judgment dated 17‑9‑1989 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Ist Senior Civil Judge, Karachi for the reasons given in the said judgment. The petitioners abovenamed being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17‑9‑1989 of the IInd Additional District Judge have filed the present revision petition. I have heard Mr. Abdul Waheed Siddiqui, Advocate in support of the above revision. I have perused the impugned judgments of the Courts below. The respondent averred in the plaint that the plot in dispute was let out to the petitioners through licence and the same was revoked. The suit was filed for possession. The petitioners categorically denied the ‑averments made by the respondent in its plaint. The petitioners pleaded that they were owners of the plot in dispute and raised pacca RCC construction. The petitioners pleaded that the suit was barred under sections 9 and 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act. The trial Court on assessment of evidence on record decreed the suit. The trial Court found that the fish stall was closed by the department and said stall being used as a commercial shop and it was not being used as a public utility. The appellate Court on re‑assessment of evidence upheld the findings of the trial Court. Finding of trial Court reached by the Courts below in the result of appreciation of evidence made by them, is not open to interference in revisional jurisdiction. It is not the case of the petitioners that any evidence brought on record had been ignored or that the evidence had not been read properly. Findings on issues 1, 2 and 3, therefore, were correctly recorded against the petitioners and were not open to exception. I see no good reasons to interfere with the well‑considered findings of the Courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioners lastly contended that the I licensees constructed pacca RCC constructions on the plot in dispute and as such cannot be evicted from the plot in dispute. This point was not taken in the written statement. No issue was framed. I have perused the memo of appeal. A perusal thereof shows that no such ground was taken in the memo of appeal. I have perused the judgment of the appellate Court. It shows that no such ground appears to have been argued before the appellate Court. The learned counsel has fairly conceded that the same was not raised before the Courts below. This contention, therefore, cannot be urged for the first time in revision. In the result, revision petition is found to be without merits and is ordered to be dismissed in limine. The above are the reasons for the short order dated 4‑12‑1989 dismissing the revision in limine on conclusion of the arguments. M.B.A./I‑98/K ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.