2006 PLP 662 (CLC)

IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--Qazi Mushtaq Ahmad, plaintiff instituted suit against Muhammad Tariq Khan and his brother Muhammad Farooq Khan, defendants, for a declaration to the effect that plaintiff was owner in possession of suit plot by virtue of agreement deed dated 12-5-1994 and entries in the Revenue Record contrary to it were incorrect and fictitious and liable to rectification. The plaintiff also prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining defendants from alienating the suit plot in any manner. The plaintiff further prayed for possession of suit plot in case he was not found in possession of the same or return of its market price. The plaintiff claimed to have given an amount of Rs.3,54,000 to defendant No.1 as loan in lieu of the plot in question. The plaintiff also claimed to have made improvements over it to the tune of Rs.49,

000. A further amount of Rs2,63,000 was also stated to have been paid to defendant No.1 as loan. The suit was resisted and the claim of the plaintiff was denied. Relevant issues were framed and after recording such evidence as the parties wished to adduce, learned Civil Judge/Illaga Qazi, Swat by his judgment and decree dated 16-3-2004, dismissed the suit holding that the plot in question belongs to defendant No.2, who was not a party to the transaction and the agreement deed dated 12-5-1994 has not been proved satisfactorily. An appeal was preferred there against which did not succeed. The same was dismissed by judgment, dated 15-7-2004 of learned Additional District Judge/lzafi Zilla Qazi, Swat.

2. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, has filed instant civil revision, challenging the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner bitterly criticised the impugned judgments and decrees of the forums below and attempted to argue that the lower Courts have acted in disregard of law and well-settled principles relating to appraisal of evidence, which has resulted in manifest injustice. The learned counsel also maintained that the judgment of the appellate Court is not in accordance with law as the appellate Court has not decided the appeal issue-wise.

4. No doubt, it is true that when the element of injustice caused to the petitioner is apparent on record, then certainly the findings recorded by the Courts below are not immune from the corrective process of this Court under the provisions of section 115, C.P.C., but after holding close scrutiny of evidence, I have satisfied myself that concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the. Courts below do not suffer from any material irregularity and illegality such as misreading, misconstruction and non-reading of any material piece of evidence. Though under section 115, C.P.C. even if a different view could possibly be taken on reappraisal of evidence, the same would not have been a ground to interference in a concurrent finding of fact. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner has totally failed to convince me that concurrent fording of fact recorded by the forums below are outcome of misreading or non-reading of evidence on record and cannot be allowed to remain intact. Adverting to the second objection that the appellate Court had failed to record judgment issue-wise and separate in terms of the requirement of Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C., the same is equally misconceived: The requirement of recording finding issue-wise by the appellate Court is not mandatory. It is sufficient for the appellate Court to deal with all the issues as are material for disposal of the controversy excepting those abandoned by the appellant. An appellate Court recording its findings on the points raised before it, without discussing the issues separately cannot be said to have committed an illegality or error as held in Umer Din v. Ghazanfar Ali and others 1991 SCMR 1816.

5. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the civil revision in hand stands dismissed in limine. H.B.T./32/P???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.