2007 PLP 743 (CLC)

IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.

Briefly stated facts of the case, out of which this civil revision has arisen are, that Raees Khan, plaintiff instituted suit against Mst. Parveen Bibi and her son Naseer Khan, defendant, for recovery of Rs.42,150, asserting that defendants had purchased three buffaloes from plaintiff on 19-11-1997, 23-7-1998 and 9-9-1999 respectively, in consideration of Rs.77,

000. Part payment was made and the remaining amount was undertaken to be paid subsequently. The defendants were approached time and again to make payment of the remaining amount but they failed to discharge their liability, which led the plaintiff to file the suit.

2. The defendants appeared in Court and contested the suit on all grounds, legal as well as factual. They denied to have purchased buffaloes from the plaintiff or executed any receipt in this regard. The pleas of the parties were reduced to as many as 11 issues. The parties produced evidence in support of their respective contentions. The learned Civil Judge Kohat, at the conclusion of the trial, keeping into consideration the material placed before him, decreed the suit by his judgment and decree dated 21-2-2005 which was maintained in appeal by judgment dated 19-10-2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kohat.

3. I have heard at length Mr. Naqibullah Khattak, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Hassan U.K. Afridi, Advocate for the respondent, with reference to the material on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that -learned lower Court has failed to appreciate evidence in its true perspective. The findings returned on Issues Nos.1, 7, 9 and 10 by learned trial Court are self-contradictory. On the one hand genuineness of receipts produced by the respondent regarding suit transaction, has been doubted whereas on the other, 'same have been made basis of claim of the respondent. The learned counsel also contended that impugned judgment of First Appellate Court is in violation of the mandatory provision of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. cannot be allowed to remain intact.

5. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent, refuted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and defended the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, maintaining that findings on question of facts or law recorded by competent Court of law/jurisdiction cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction unless those findings suffer from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularity. To augment the contentions, reliance was placed Haji Sheikh Habibullah and others v. Messrs Muhammad Amin and another PLD 1965 (W.P.) Kar. 445, Muhammad Sharif Khan v. Mst. Ismat Bi and 4 others PLD 1982 SC (AJ&K) 76 and Mst. Sabira Begum v. Hakim Muhammad Akhtar and another 1993 MLD 955.

6. Though the reappraisal of evidence, is not permissible in revisional jurisdiction yet as the petitioners have claimed misreading of evidence, I have undertaken this exercise to satisfy myself and to verify the proprietary of judgment and decree impugned herein. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below are based on correct appreciation of the evidence and hardly call for interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Both the Courts below have given exhaustive judgment after due appraisal of evidence on the file and after discussing all the pros and cons of the case. There appears no legal defect in their judgments, which are in harmony with the evidence on the file. The conclusion of fact arrived concurrently by both the lower Court is not open to challenge in civil revision, particularly when no specific misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out. The evidence on record has been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court and no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioners. In matters of this kind circumstantial evidence would be of no small importance. Further the failure of the petitioners to appear in the witness-box and answer the claim of the respondent is not without significance. No explanation has been furnished for non-appearance.

7. So far as the next objection raised on behalf of the petitioners, regarding non-compliance of the provision of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. is concerned, I find that learned Appellate Court was alive to the situation and the issue involved has been dealt with and decided in a careful manner. The Appellate Court had, given its finding on all the points of controversy. So far as the question of giving issuewise findings by the Appellate Court is concerned, the same is not the requirement of law as under Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C., the Appellate Court is to state the points for determination, give its decision thereon and reason for the said decision be also mentioned.

8. Needless to emphasize that the scope of section 115, C.P.C. is limited and as such, this Court cannot interfere in its revisional jurisdiction with the concurrent findings on a question of fact, rendered by the two Courts below unless it finds misreading and non-reading of evidence therein. The civil revision is bereft of merit. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./35/P Revision dismissed.