2005 PLP 1334 (CLC)

The facts of the case shortly narrated are that Mst. Bushra and her sister Mst. Islam Bibi plaintiffs, through Muhammad Siaf Khan, instituted suit on 26-3-1999 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge/Aala Illaqa Qazi, District Swat against their mother Mst. Rahamtal Bibi and others defendants, seeking declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are owners in possession to the extent of 2/3rd share in suit-land bearing Khasra No.593 measuring 6 Kanals, 3 Marlas situate in the area of Mauza Jano, Tehsil Khawaza Khela Swat and defendants are not justified to deny the title of the plaintiffs and assert their own. In the alternative, possession of the suit property was also sought. The soundness of the Mutation No. 144 attested on 23-5-1996 by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 was also brought under challenge.

2. In the written statement submitted on behalf of defendants 1 and 2, claim of the plaintiffs was denied and sale in favour of defendants 2 and 3 by defendant No. l was said to have rightly made. During pendency of the suit an application was moved on 17-11-2000 for appointment of a Local Commissioner to ascertain ages of the plaintiffs and obtain their opinion. The application was accepted and a Local Commissioner was appointed accordingly. The Local Commissioner recorded statements of the parties, ascertained age of plaintiff No. l and obtained their opinion. According to school leaving certificate plaintiff No. 1, was found 16 years and 11 months of age. In the report it was mentioned that plaintiffs are residing with their mother happily, she is bearing their expenses and their interest are not at variance with each other. The report of the Commissioner was accepted and in the light thereof suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 28-3-2001. An appeal was preferred there against which did not succeed. The learned Additional District Judge, Swat through his judgment dated 10-10-2001 dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of the trial Court with slight modification.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed instant revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. which is before me for consideration.

4. Mian Shaukat Hussain, Advocate for the petitioners forcefully contended that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below suffer from the vice of misreading and non-reading of evidence and the report of the Commissioner has been given weight without any justifiable reason.

5. Mr. Astaghfriullah, Advocate for the respondents controverted the arguments of his adversary and reiterated that the impugned decisions of the Courts below are supported by the material on record and report of the Local Commissioner has been taken into consideration for valid reasons and made basis of the impugned decisions.

6. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties with reference to the material on record, I find that both the Courts below have rightly, considered the matter and have correctly exercised their jurisdiction. No misreading or non-reading has been asserted or pointed out, in absence of which no interference can be made in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The Local Commissioner recorded statements of the petitioners and has given a detailed report about the ages of the petitioners and other matters. The report has been accepted for valid reasons and I see no good ground to take a contrary view. There is nothing on the tile to show that the petitioners are minors and respondent No.1 is bent upon to dispose of the property of the petitioners with sinister purpose. The mere assertion of petitioners' counsel that the impugned judgments and decrees are not well-based, without a positive attempt on his part to substantiate the same, is of no consequence. Both the Courts below have dealt with the matter in a proper manner with application of judicious mind and have given a correct finding which is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115, C.P.C. The revision petition is found bereft of substance. The same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./397/P Petition dismissed