2014 PLP 161 (SCMR)

AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.

This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-6-2013, passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two forums below against the petitioner were maintained.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of instant petition are that in the year 1985, the respondents filed a suit against the petitioner before the senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, pleading therein that the petitioners published an advertisement in the press to auction lease hold rights in respect of plots Nos.2, 3 and 17 and others. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents namely Allah Bakhsh participated in the bid and his bid was declared highest. Accordingly the bid was accepted and 10% of the auction money was deposited with the petitioner. The said auction was confirmed by the petitioner through its resolution and agreement under Schedule VI of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules 1957 was executed by the petitioner in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, whereafter possession of the above said plots was handed over to him. In the year 1956, the remaining auction money was also paid by the said Haji Allah Bakhsh which was accepted by the petitioner without any objection. On 23-5-1957, said Haji Allah Bakhsh transferred the plots to the respondents which transfer was approved by the petitioner and the respondents kept on paying the prescribed lease rent. After this, the respondents persistently requested the petitioner to execute conveyance deed in their favour, but the petitioner avoided on one pretext or the other. On 9-5-1974, the petitioner proceeded to re-auction the leasehold rights, which was challenged by the respondents through Civil Suit for specific performance seeking injunction against the respondents to re-auction the suit plots.

3. The petitioner filed written statement taking preliminary and legal objections and out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed various issues. The trial Court recorded evidence of the parties and decreed the suit in favour of the respondents, vide its judgment and decree dated 4-7-1989. The petitioners preferred appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Rawalpindi, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 15-11-2000. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed Civil Revision before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which too, met the same fate vide impugned judgment dated 6-6-2013.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned High Court did not discuss the issues framed by the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment. According to him, the learned High Court has not recorded any findings in respect of the contentions of petitioner's counsel raised before it, particularly in regard to the issue No.1. He next contended that the suit was barred by time and no finding was recorded by the learned High Court on it.

5. We have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record. The trial Court has discussed in detail the issues referred to hereinabove by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The trial Court has held that the possession of the suit property was delivered to the plaintiffs in the suit and this finding was based on the evidence of P.W.1, Mian Mushtaq Ahmed, who produced the letter (Exh.P.I). The trial Court while holding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property, was of the view that the provisions of section 27(a) of the Specific Relief Act would not bar the suit of the respondents (Plaintiffs). The first Appellate Court affirmed this finding.

6. It is not the requirement of law that the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction to discuss the findings recorded by the Courts below on each issue, particularly when it concurs with them. The scope of revision is narrow and requires the High Court to examine whether the courts below have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in them or have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity and have misread the evidence brought on record by the parties. In other words, the provisions of section 115, C.P.C. under which a High Court exercises its revisional jurisdiction, confer an exceptional and necessary power intended to secure effective exercise of its superintendence and visitorial powers of correction unhindered by technicalities. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked against conclusions of law or fact, which do not, in any way, affect the jurisdiction of the court. In the instant case, the learned High Court, in law, could not have investigated into the facts or exercised its jurisdiction on the basis of facts or grounds, which were already proved by the parties by leading evidence. We are of the considered view that the judgment impugned in these proceedings is unexceptionable. The learned High Court was justified in not interfering in the concurrent findings of fact which were based on the material brought on record and proper appreciation of evidence.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment, which could warrant interference by this Court. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. MH/C-15/SC Petition dismissed.