1988 PLP 622 (CLC)

‑‑‑S. 100‑‑Appellate jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Findings of fact concurrently arrived at by subordinate Courts, held, could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction when nothing was pointed out to show that Courts below had misread evidence on record. Muhammad Muzaffarul Haq for Appellant Imran Ahmed for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd May, 1987. This second appeal has been filed in the following circum stances:‑‑ The respondent filed a suit for possession and mesne profits in respect of property bearing No. 4/12, S.No. 100, situated in Green Town, Drigh Colony, Karachi, avering, that he had purchased the property in an auction from the Settlement Department but he was forcibly being dispossessed from the same The case of the appellant however, was that he had purchased the suit land for consideration from one G.H. Brohi for consideration. According to the appellant there was 99 years lease duly executed in respect of the land and the appellant was also in physical possession thereof and had constructed a house thereupon The learned trial court framed nine issues and after taking evidence in the case decreed the suit in favour of the respondent The appellant filed appeal, but without any success and hence this second appeal. I have heard Mr. Muzaffarul Haq, learned counsel for the appellant as none appeared on behalf of the respondent when the appeal was argued. Mr. Muzaffarul Haq has first contended that both the learned subordinate Courts have placed reliance on inadmissible evidence and his second contention is that the appellant had produced overwhelming evidence in support of his case, consisting of lease deed (Exh. 10‑B), physical possession order (Exh. 10‑C) and receipt of payment (Exh. 13‑A) besides evidence of four witnesses, but the same has not been considered by the learned subordinate Courts. According to Mr. Muzaffarul Haq, the appellant had also relied upon Judgment of the High Court and the Supreme Court relating to the adjoining survey numbers besides judgment of the Civil Court in Suit No. 338 of 1974 in further support of his claim but such important evidence has been ignored by the learned subordinate Courts. So far as the first contention of Mr. Muzaffarul Haq is concerned it has been very candidly conceded by the counsel that when the documents were produced by the respondent in evidence no objection at that time had been taken on behalf of the appellant in regard to their inadmissibility. The argument, therefore, cannot be allowed to be pressed in this second appeal. Turning to the second contention of the counsel, no doubt the appellant had produced both documentary and oral evidence to show that the property had been purchased by him from one G . H . Brohi, but evidence was also produced by the respondent to show that the property was auctioned by the Settlement Department and the same was purchased by the respondent in the auction. Holding of auction by the Settlement Department is not disputed by the appellant as the same has even been admitted in the written statement. Both the learned subordinate Courts it appears, have attached more weight to the documents issued by the Settlement Department, showing that the suit property had been declared evacuee property and an open auction had been held as per notification No. 669‑574‑R(I), dated 11‑2‑1966 and the land in question had been purchased in the auction by the respondent. No doubt, P.T.O. or P.T.D. in respect of the property was not produced in evidence by the respondent, but other documents such as receipts in respect of payment made by the respondent to the Settlement Department and a certificate showing transfer of the property in favour of the respondent, etc. were produced in support of the respondent's plea. From the impugned judgment it clearly appears that both the parties set up opposite pleas and sought to support them with documentary and other evidence. However, both the learned Courts below attached more weight to the evidence produced by the respondent and decided the case in favour of the respondent. Since there are concurrent findings of fact given by the learned subordinate Courts in favour of the respondent and nothing can be spelled out from they two judgments which can lead to an inference that any evidence has been misread by them, I find no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by them. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./A‑186/K Appeal dismissed