1988 PLP 2054 (CLC)

"(1) Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable? (2) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit? (3) Whether the articles shown in Schedule A/1 were given to the plaintiff in Jahez? If yes, what was its market value at that time? (4) With whom the articles of Jahez are lying at present? (5) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any relief? (6) What should the decree be?"

4. Issues Nos.l and 2 are legal issues and are not pressed before this Court.

5. All the other issues are issues of facts, on which there are concurrent findings of the two Courts below.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant contends, that the judgments are based on misreading of evidence. He has pointed a few instances of alleged misreading of the evidence by the courts. He contends, that the learned Appellate Court in paragraph (8) of the judgment has observed that according to Ghulam Nabi value of golden ornaments was. between Rs.400 or Rs.500 whereas, in his statement the witness has stated that the value was Rs.4,000 or Rs.5,

000. In the same paragraph, learned Appellate Court is alleged to have wrongly given the weight of the ornaments to be 9‑10 Tolas. Similarly, it is pointed by the learned counsel for the applicant, that the learned trial Court has wrongly observed in judgment at page No.10 that the weight of the golden and silver ornaments was not mentioned in the list.

7. These misreadings of the evidence, if any, are of no material importance. The decisions of the learned Courts below are not based upon the conclusions drawn by the abovesaid misreading of the evidence. The evidence of the parties consists only of oral evidence and the learned Courts below for the reasons recorded have disbelieved the evidence of the applicant and her witness and have believed the evidence of the respondent. The main consideration that weighed with the Courts below, appears to be, that though the list of the ornaments and articles is alleged to have been prepared at the time of the Nikah and is alleged to be signed by certain witnesses, it does not bear the signature of the respondent though he is said Jo be present at that time. Therefore, this evidence has been disbelived. The other ground that was considered by the learned Appellate Courts was that the applicant had neither produced any receipt of the purchase of the ornaments that were given to her in dowery nor has she examined any of her parents to prove that they had given the said ornaments in dowery to her.

8. This is a revision application under section 115 C . P. C . It is held by their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanwal Nain and 3 others v. Fateh Khan P L D ‑ 1983 S C 53, that the revisional powers under Section 115 C .P. C . were primarily intended for correcting errors made by the subordinate Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction and also ordinarily erroneous decisions of fact were not revisable except in cases where the decision was based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence or so perverse that grave injustice would result therefrom Their Lordships further held that in upsetting the conclusions of the Courts below on the question of fact by means of re‑examination of evidence in revision, the High Court overstepped the limits of its jurisdiction.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the case of Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Islam and others 1987 S C M R 115, wherein their lordships observed that the High Court was justified in declining to interfere in concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below, where the counsel could not point out any misreading of the evidence.

10. I have already pointed that misreading of evidence if any, was not of such a vital nature as to affect the out come of the suit. The conclusion arrived at by the Courts below are not based on any inadmissible evidence or are perverse and as such no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is called for. The revision application is, therefore, dismissed with no orders as to) costs.

11. The revision application was dismissed by the short order earlier today. The above are the reasons in support of the said order. H . B . T . / Y‑11 / K Petition dismissed.