The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession against the respondents before the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore on 23.12.1992.
Respondents filed written statement, controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- Issues
1. Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action and locus standi to file the suit? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
3. Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has not approached this Court with cleans, hands? OPD
5. Whether the suit cannot proceed in view of preliminary Objection No, 1? OPD-3.
6. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is the correct valuation? OPD-3.
7. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the property in dispute? OPP
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the possession of the property in dispute? OPP
9. Relief.
The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.5.1996. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore who dismissed the same vide order dated 27.2.2001. The petitioner being aggrieved filed C.R. No, 1218 of 2001 which was accepted vide judgment dated 25.6.2003 and the case was remanded to the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh. The First Appellate Court decided the appeal of the appellant vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29.12.2003 against the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this revision petition.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that First Appellate Court decided the appeal in violation of the parameters prescribed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation vide judgment dated 25.6.2003 passed in C.R. No, 1218 of 2001. He further submits that First Appellate Court erred in law to ignore Ex. P. 4 and Ex. P. 6 without application of mind. He further submits that First Appellate Court erred in law to ignore the decisions of the Civil Court earlier passed in suits filed by the petitioner and others which were placed on record in the shape of Ex. P. 4 and Ex. P.
6. He further submits that impugned judgment is result of mis-reading and non-reading of the record. He summed up his arguments that both the Courts below non-suited the petitioner without application of mind by mis-reading and non-reading of the record.
3. I have given may anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that Ex. P. 4 and Ex. P. 6 were properly appreciated and scrutinized by, the First Appellate Court after remand. Coupled with the fact that Ex. P. 4 and P.6 are judgments of Civil Court in suit filed by the petitioner and others.. Ex. P. 4 is a judgment in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner against one Muhammad Yousaf. Similarly Ex. P. 6 is a certified copy of suit for permanent injunction between the petitioner and Muhammad Yousaf which was decided ex-parte vide order dated 23.1.1995. It is pertinent to mention here that in both the suits present respondents were not party. Therefore, judgments of the Civil Court in the suits filed by the petitioner or against the petitioner are not binding upon the present respondents/defendants in the present controversy, as per was laid down in "M. Hafeez's case" (1991 M.L.D. 1560). Therefore, both the Courts below were justified, with cogent reasons, by not making any reliance upon Ex. P. 4 and P.
6. Both the Courts below after proper appreciation of evidence on record specially Ex. P 6 and statement of the petitioner and documentary evidence in the shape of Ex. D1 and D2 have given finding of fact against the petitioner. The petitioner has no right over the suit property in view of his own statement as well as other evidence available on record. I have also re-appraisal the same and approve the finding of the Court below. It is settled principle of law that this Court has very limited jurisdiction to disturb the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below while exercising powers under Section 115 of CPC. The parameters have been prescribed by the Privy Council since 1949, in "N.S. Vankatagiri Ayyangar and another v. The Hindu Religious Endowments 'Board Madrass" (PLD 1949 P.C. 26). The relevant observation is as follows: This section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself upon three matters (a) that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breath of some provision of law, or with maternal irregularity, that is, by committing some error or procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however profoundly. From the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law"
The judgment of 'the Privy Council was ,considered and followed by this Court in 'Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore vs. Syed Khalid Mehmood" (N.L.R. 1985 Civil 114). It is pertinent to mention here that judgment of this Court was up-held by the Honourable Supreme Court vide judgment dated 31.3.1985 passed in C.P.
No, 1146 of 1984, which was again reaffirmed and approved by the Honourable Supreme Court in the reported judgment Ghula m Qadir's case (PLD 1988 S.0 625). The learned counsel of the petitioners fails to bring the case within the parameters prescribed by the Privy Council in the aforesaid judgment. The learned counsel of the petitioner also failed to point out any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgments of both the Courts below, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings of the facts of the Courts below, which have been given after proper appreciation of evidence on record.
In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.