2007 PLP 1716 (YLR)

IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.

Shortly narrated the facts relevant for the disposal of instant civil revision are, that Ali Rehman, plaintiff instituted suit against Government of N.-W.F.P., through Secretary Home and others, defendants, for a declaration to the effect that plaintiff was owner in possession of suit-land, detailed in .the plaint, by virtue of inheritance and defendants had no justification to deny title of the plaintiff and assert their own. In the alternative, possession of suit-land was also sought. The defendants also filed civil suit. Both the suits were ' consolidated. The learned trial Judge on the basis of the divergent pleadings of the parties, framed as many as 13 issues and issue Nos.1, 5 and 7 to 12 being pivotal to the decision of the matter are being reproduced below:-

2. After close of evidence of the parties and as a result of findings on the aforesaid issues, both the suits were dismissed by judgment and decree dated 30-9-2005. An appeal was preferred thereagainst, which did not succeed. The same was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi, Swat, by judgment dated 9-6-2006, giving rise to the filing of instant civil revision under section 115, C.P.C.

3. Mr. Khan Bahader Khattak, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently contended that both the Courts below have incorrectly dismissed suit of the plaintiff-petitioner out of misreading the evidence on the file, thus the judgment being contrary to the record and law and tainted with illegality and irregularity as envisaged by section 115, C.P.C., are not sustainable at law. Additionally, it was urged, that provisions of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. have not been complied with by the appellate Court, which has resulted in complete miscarriage of justice. Concluding the arguments, it was reiterated that ex-Ruler of Swat had no interest in suit-land and decision (Exh.DW 4/1) of Federal Land Commission was in 'respect of some other property having no nexus with suit-land.

4. It may be noted here that no one appeared on behalf of the defendants' despite service and thus they were proceeded ex parte.

5. It is established principle of civil law that the petitioner has to prove his case from his own evidence and cannot benefit from the weaknesses in the defendant's case. Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts, which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. The onus to prove Issues Nos.1, 5 and 7 to 12, was heavily placed on the shoulders of the petitioner, but he has failed to discharge the same by producing cogent and independent evidence. The evidence produced by him is discrepant and cannot be considered sufficient to sustain- his claim. Both the Courts below have given exhaustive judgments after due appraisal of evidence on the file and after discussing all the pros and cons of the case. There appears to be no legal defect in their judgments, which are in consonance with the evidence on the file. Judgments of the Courts below are neither tainted with any illegality or irregularity nor are fanciful or arbitrary, thus for the reasons discussed above, no interference is called for by this Court.

6. It is well-settled principle of law that in case the trial Court has exercised jurisdiction which is upheld by the first appellate Court, this Court seldom interferes unless and until the discretion is exercised arbitrarily. It is also settled principle of law that this Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in concurrent findings of Courts below while exercising jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. unless and until judgments of the Courts below are result of misreading or non-reading of evidence or decision of the case is in violation of parameters prescribed by the superior Courts. The Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence available on record and I have not been able to find out any misreading/non-reading of evidence or any material irregularity or any jurisdictional error or defect warranting interference in the concurrent findings of the Court of competent jurisdiction. Abdur Rahim and another v. Mst. Jantay Bibi and others (2000 SCMR 346), Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani and 2 others (2000 SCMR 329, Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah, (PLD 1994 SC 291) and Muhammad Rashid Ahmad v. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 2002 SC 293).

7. Reverting to the other objection raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding non-compliance of the requirements of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C., no doubt, it is true that the characteristic of a good judgment is that it must be self-evident and self-explanatory, in other words, it must contain reasons that justify conclusions arrived at and these reasons should be such that a disinterested reader can find them convincing at least reasonable. In the instant case all the legal formalities have been duly complied with and no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioner. The learned appellate Court has given elaborate findings on each and every point. The judgment of the appellate Court has been recorded keeping in view the provisions contained in Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. The objection of the learned counsel is misconceived. For the aforesaid facts and reasons, no error of law having been pointed, I find no merit in this revision petition or justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, which do not suffer from any inherent infirmity or legal and jurisdictional error. The revision petition is bereft of substance. The same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. H.B.T./82/P Revision dismissed.