' This civil revision challenges the judgment and decree dated 18-6-2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bannu whereby the appeal filed against the judgment and decree, dated 24-10-2002 of learned Civil Judge-III, Bannu was dismissed with no order as to costs.
2. Shortly narrated the facts are, that Mughal Shah plaintiff filed suit against Rehmatullah Khan, defendant for recovery of Rs,66,000 alongwith 16% interest from 26-2-1997 till the time of payment.
The plaintiff also prayed for recovery of Rs,34,000 as damages for mental torture etc.
3. The defendant contested the suit and controverted the assertions made in the plaint. The pleas of the parties gave rise to the framing of as many as twelve issues. For the purpose of this civil revision, I am concerned with issues Nos.1 and 8 which are reproduced below:--
(1) Whether plaintiff has got a cause of action?
(8) Whether an amount of Rs,66,000 is outstanding against defendant in light of `Iqrar Nama' executed between the parties dated 26-8-1997?
4. The learned Civil Judge, Bannu, on consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, partially allowed the suit to the extent of Rs,66,000 by his judgment and decree dated 24-10-2002.
An appeal was preferred thereagainst before learned District Judge, Bannu which was entrusted to learned Additional District Judge, Bannu for disposal who dismissed the same vide his judgment, dated 18-6-2003. Thereafter, the petitioner came up before this Court in revisional jurisdiction against the concurrent judgment and decrees of both the Courts below, for their annulment.
5. Mr. Khawaja Nawaz Khan, Advocate for the petitioner contended that concurrent findings of facts are not in consonance with the evidence on record and as such do not stand in the way of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction and that the "Iqrar Nama" in question having not been satisfactorily proved, should not have been considered and made basis of the claim of the respondent. To support the pleas, he placed reliance on PLD 1982 Pesh. 42 and PLD 2004 Pesh.1 .
6. Conversely. Mr. Kaleem Arshad Khan, Advocate for the respondent supported the impugned judgments of the Courts below and maintained that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless the same are found to have been based on incorrect appreciation of evidence. He relied on 2004 MLD 57, 2004 CLC 643 Lahore and 2004 CLC 699 Peshawar.
7. The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not competent in undertaking its own appraisal of evidence in the face of concurrent findings of the two Courts below, in the absence of any jurisdictional error or material irregularity. Revisional powers under section 115, C.P.C. Are primarily intended for correcting errors made by the subordinate Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction. Also ordinarily erroneous decision of facts are not revisable except in cases where the decision is based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence was relied upon or the order sought to be revised is so perverse that grave miscarriage of justice would result therefrom.
8. Concurrent findings of facts delivered by the two Courts below can neither be made subject of scrutiny by this Court nor reappraisal of evidence in the revisional jurisdiction is permissible under law.
9. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties in the light of material available on file, I find that the execution of "Iqrar Nama" has not been specifically denied in the written statement. An unsuccessful attempt has been made to show that the petitioner had not thumb- impressed .The "Iqrar Nama" and it was bogus and fictitious but nothing has been produced to substantiate the contention. The "Iqrar Nama" has been satisfactorily proved by Muhammad Khan, Petition Writer and Muhammad Mumtaz and Muhammad Rahim Shah marginal witnesses. The onus to prove payment of outstanding amount was heavily placed on the shoulder of the petitioner, but he has not discharged the same satisfactorily. The mere assertion of the petitioner that he has discharged his liability and nothing is outstanding against him, without a positive attempt on his part to substantiate the same. Is of no consequence.
10. Pursuant to above, I find that both the Courts below have rightly decided the lis, in consonance with the evidence on the file, which has neither been misread nor non-read. They have committed no illegality or irregularity, in the absence of which, no interference at all, is called for in revisional jurisdiction of this Court under the law.
11. The revision petition is bereft of substance. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Revision .