' Mst. Naseem Akhtar respondent No,3, herein had brought a suit under section 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 which was contested by the petitioner. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 23-11-1993, where-against revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Daska on 28-9-2000. These concurrent judgments are sought to be assailed through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. It may be mentioned that the suit which was instituted in the year 1991, had earlier been decreed by the trial Court on 29-4-1992, however, the matter was remanded to the trial Court by the revisional Court framing an additional Issue 1-A "Whether the plaintiff was in possession of suit property and was dispossessed without due course of law" Judgment dated 23-11-1993 was then rendered by the learned trial Court which as mentioned above was upheld by the revisional Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has endeavoured to assail the concurrent view taken by the Courts below on the ground that Issue No,1-A has not been correctly decided by the Courts below.
According to him respondent-plaintiff was never in possession who herself did not appear as a witness before the Court and that a co-owner cannot claim exclusive possession of the property jointly owned with others.
3. It may be noted that the suit property had been possessed by Manzoor Ahmad deceased who died in the year 1988. It was the case of respondent No,3- plaintiff that she took possession thereof on the death of her husband from which she was forcibly and illegally dispossessed by the petitioner-defendant on 30-8-1991 in the garb of a temporary injunction obtained in a suit for injunction filed by the petitioner. Several issues had been framed by the trial Court emerging from the pleadings of the parties. In the context of controversy, Issues Nos.1 and 1-A were of importance.
The learned trial Court on consideration of the evidence recorded its finding on Issue No,1 and found that the respondent-plaintiff had been dispossessed from the property without her consent and otherwise than in due course of law. In view of such finding Issue No,1-A was also decided in her favour. Before the revisional Court such findings were assailed by the petitioner. The learned Additional District Judge on appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that "Possession of the disputed property prior to the death of Manzoor Ahmad deceased was admittedly with him and from perusal of the evidence of the parties, it has become crystal clear that after his death, she being his widow, got the possession of the suit property. So far the question of forcible dispossession of.The respondent is concerned, that too is proved keeping in view the above- referred deposition of the parties. There is absolutely no doubt that the respondent was in possession of the suit property and she subsequently was dispossessed forcibly by the petitioner."
It was further observed that the petitioner had filed a suit for injunction before dispossessing the respondent-plaintiff as a precautionary measure which was withdrawn later on. It is evident that both the Courts have on appreciation of the evidence believed the version of the respondent- plaintiff and recorded finding in her favour that she had been in possession and was dispossessed without her consent forcibly. Such appreciation of the evidence made by the Courts below concurrently can hardly be amenable to interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. It may be observed that the finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below, as to the possession of the respondent-plaintiff and dispossession by the petitioner, is purely a question of fact which had been decided by the two Courts below and writ jurisdiction is not meant for interference with such a determination made by the Courts. Reference in this context may be made to Abdul Ghafoor v.
Nazir Ahmad and others 1987 CLC 826; Raja Sher Ali v. District Judge, Jhelum and 9 others 1989 CLC 219 and Abdul Wahid Mirza v. V.T. H. Additional District Judge (South) Karachi and 3 others 1989 CLC
957. Moreover the scope of writ jurisdiction is limited which cannot be converted into an appellate forum to appreciate the evidence overagain or to substitute the findings of the lower forum. I am, therefore, of the view that the view taken by the Courts below does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction.
4. The legal position qua section 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, is quite clear and settled inasmuch as that Court is obliged to keep in view its parameters only. In order to grant relief under section 9 of the Act, the plaintiff was required to prove that she was in possession; that she was dispossessed by the defendant; that the dispossession was without her consent and was otherwise than in accordance with law and that the dispossession was within the specified period. Other questions such as title etc. Are not germane for invoking provisions of section 9 of the Act. Reference in this context may be made to Late Mst. Majeedan through Legal Heirs and another v. Late Muhammad Naseem through Legal Heirs and another 2001 SCM R 345 and Abdul Aziz v. Mst. Daulat Bibi and 3 others PLD 1973 Lahore 125. The object and purpose of the same is to provide summary remedy with no right of appeal even.
' It may be added that though the respondent-plaintiff was lady and did not appear herself in the Court, yet her duly constituted special attorney appeared and deposed in the Court. She discharged the onus of proof by producing convincing evidence to which no exception can be taken by this Court. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, cannot be countenanced and are repelled.
' In view of the above, the petition is dismissed accordingly.