1988 PLP 1848 (CLC)

(3) Whether the jurisdiction of the Court is barred by sections 22 and 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita tion) Act? (4) Whether the jurisdiction of the Court is barred under section 12(2). C.P.C.? (5) Whether the suit is barred under section 11, C.P.C.? O.P.D. (6) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD (7) Whether the suit is barred under Order VII, Rule 11, ‑C.P.C.? (8) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his conduct to file the suit? (9) Whether the impugned deed of association in favour of defendant No.l is based upon fraud and mis‑representation and is illegal and void? O.P.P. (10) Whether the impugned transfer order in favour of defendant No.l is void, ab initio, and is illegal and inoperative against the plaintiff? (11) Relief . Issue No.9 was justifiably treated as most important issue by the learned trial Court as also by the learned appellate Court. This issue was decided against the petitioner and consequently his suit was dismissed and his appeal also met the same fate. Issue No.9, of course, raised a question of fact on which finding has been recorded in favour of respondent No.l. The subsequent issue viz. issue No.10, pertaining to the validity of the transfer has rightly been decided in favour of respondent No.l in view of the findings on issue No.9.

4. Findings on questions of fact recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. in the absence of jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity.

5. Competency of the learned trial Court and that of the learned appellate Court which have passed the impugned judgments and decrees has not been questioned at all. No illegality pertaining to these judgments has been pointed out either. It has, however, been urged that material irregularity has occurred qua the impugned judgments, inasmuch as evidence led by the petitioner has not been properly read and construed. In this behalf it has been mainly pleaded that testimony of a witness, namely, Syed Hassan Ali Shah, who was examined as P.W.1 and who happened to be the marginal witness of the disputed deed of association has not been read at all. This contention is, in fact, devoid of merit, because the perusal of the judgments of the Courts below reveals that statement of Syed Hassan Ali Shah P.W. was duly considered, discussed but not believed inasmuch as his statement was contradicted by that of the Record Keeper of the office of the D.S.C. and also by the records produced in Court by the said witness. This fact has also been considered by the Courts below that the respondent deposited an amount of Rs.1,23,000 in the petitioner's account through his counsel Yousaf Kazmi Advocate, as consideration for the deed of association. This deposit has been admitted before the trial Court by the petitioner. In the circumstances, there is no substance in the allegation that the learned lower Courts have not read the evidence led on behalf of the parties.

6. For the foregoing reasons it is concluded that in case of impugned judgments and decrees there is no shortcoming justifying interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor an illegality or material irregularity. In this view of the matter, the civil revision is devoid of any merit and is consequently dismissed in limine. S.Q./S‑167/L Petition dismissed.