1. ' Respondent No,1 had filed a suit for declaration that Mutation No,719 attested on 10-1-1995, whereby his 8 Kanals of land in District Multan is shown to have been exchanged with the petitioner's land in Mauza Khanpur Shamali, District Muzaffargarh, is illegal, against facts based on fraud and is void. By way of consequential relief it was prayed that the petitioner (defendant) be perpetually restrained from getting the aforesaid mutation implemented.
2. Precisely facts of the case were that the petitioner (defendant) had proposed to exchange his fertile land in a compact block and larger in size, with the disputed land which belongs to respondent No,1 (plaintiff); the plaintiff accepted the proposal and got oral mutation of exchange in respect of his land attested in favour of the defendant but the defendant did not transfer any land in favour of the plaintiff and it later on transpired that the defendant was not owner in possession of any fertile land but was co-sharer in joint and un-commanded land alongwith his brother. It was, therefore, alleged that mutation of exchange was not only the result of misrepresentation and fraud but was also without consideration and as such was void. The suit was contested by the petitioner (defendant) on the grounds that the plaintiff had voluntarily got the impugned mutation attested in his favour and that he is willing to give land in exchange to the respondent (plaintiff). It was also asserted that the plaintiff had borrowed from him a sum of Rs,2,25,000 with promise to return the same at the time when the land in exchange would be given to him by the defendant.
2. ' After framing issues and recording evidence, the suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 16- 1-1998. Defendant's appeal against that judgment/ decree was dismissed by A.D.J., Multan on 24- 3-2001.
3. ' The aforesaid concurrent judgments of the two Courts below are assailed in this civil revision by the defendant on the grounds that:-- ' Both the impugned judgments are against law and facts; ' both the Courts below had acted in the exercise of their jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity; and ' the impugned judgments are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence.
4. ' Petitioner's counsel has been heard. Civil revision and the annexures appended therewith perused.
5. ' There is concurrent findings on question of facts by the two Courts below that particulars of the property given in exchange to the plaintiff were not mentioned in the impugned mutation of exchange; the property agreed to be given in exchange by the defendant was not given and the defendant had falsely represented that he was owner in possession of fertile land in a compact block and defendant had not given in exchange any land to the plaintiff.
6. ' The impugned mutation of exchange was even not supported by the defendant as while appearing in the witness-box he said during cross-examination that he had, in fact, purchased the disputed land from the plaintiff in consideration of Rs,2,25,000 in presence of Noor Muhammad and Saeed Ahmad. The said witnesses were not produced by the defendant neither any sale-deed nor A mutation of sale in support of that assertion was produced.
7. ' Findings on question of fact or law recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction, though erroneous, cannot be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction unless such findings are based on no evidence or are arbitrary and perverse.
8. ' A perusal of the impugned judgments coupled with evidence shows that concurrent findings on questions of fact recorded by two Courts below are based on evidence and are supported by sound and plausible reasoning.
9. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner could not draw my attention to any material piece of evidence which was allegedly overlooked or was misread by any of the two Courts below. In the impugned judgments neither there appears to be any misreading of evidence nor any material piece of evidence appears to have been overlooked while deciding the issues.
10. ' In section 115(1)(c), C.P.C., the words "illegally or with material irregularity" have reference to material defects of procedure and not to errors of law or fact.
11. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out the commission of any error of procedure in the course of trial or appeal by the Courts below.
12. ' For the reasons stated above, the civil revision being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed in limine.