' Facts giving rise to the present revision petition are to the effect: that Mst. Aamina Bibi plaintiff- respondent (herein) had instituted a suit for partition and possession of a house consisting of seven rooms measuring 4 Kanals, the boundary and description of which is narrated in the head note of the plaint, situated in Mauza Chaowal, Tehsil Bhalwal District, Sargodha, against the petitioners/ defendants, claiming 1/3rd share of the property/house as legal heir of her deceased father Muhammad Ali. The suit was contested by the defendants and from the factual controversy appearing on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court led to frame various issues.
2. After recording and appreciating the evidence of the parties the trial Court vide, its judgment and decree dated 16-7-1992 dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved thereby, plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Bhalwal vide, his impugned judgment and decree dated 13-12-1995 accepted the appeal, reversing the findings of trial Court, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record.
4. The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that the property in dispute was owned by one Sahna, the predecessor-in-interest of the parties who died leaving behind three sons and one of them Muhammad Ali was father of plaintiff-respondent. Sultan, petitioner No.1 and Shera, the predecessorin-interest of petitioners Nos.2 to 6 were other two sons of Sahna. After the death of Sahna, the three sons inherited the property 1/3rd each share. At the time of institution of suit, Sultan son of Sahna was alive and other two Muhammad Ali and Shera were died. After the death of father of plaintiff, her remaining sisters alienated their respective shares in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.10,000 and in this respect an agreement had been executed on 3-2-1979 on the basis of which the plaintiff became the owner of 1/3rd of the property in question.
5. The defendants-petitioners in their written statement had asserted that the plaintiff is not entitled for 1/3rd share and the agreement to sell executed in her favour by her other sisters was without any backing of legal authority. The plaintiff appeared as P.W.1 as his own witness. She produced Ghulam P.W.2, Mst. Fatima Bibi, her sister P.W.3 and Riaz Ahmad P.W.4 who prepared the site-plan Exh.P.2. The evidence of the plaintiff had been controverted by Sultan petitioner No.1 and Yar Muhammad D.W.2.
6. There is no cavil with the fact that 1B the plaintiff had already filed a previous suit against defendants-petitioners for issuance of injunction against them, restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff and in appeal she was allowed to withdraw the suit in order to file afresh one. The copy of the order had been placed in evidence as Exh.D.3 by the petitioners themselves.
Another most important document Exh.D.2 produced by the petitioners is the statement of counsel for the petitioners in that previous suit. According to which he made a statement to the effect that petitioners would be restrained to make any illegal interference into the possession of the appellants. On the basis of this statement the suit was dismissed. That suit was for permanent injunction and the subsequent present suit filed by the petitioners was for the partition of the property and it is not barred by law as it has been filed on a fresh cause of action. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that plaintiff-respondent had not deposited the costs imposed by the Appellate Court for filing the fresh suit but this objection was not agitated by the petitioner before lower forum and an objection which was not raised there cannot be agitated or raised at this revisional stage. It is admitted position that Mst. Amina Bibi plaintiff-respondent was in possession over the property in dispute and that her father had also inherited the property from Sahna, the grand-father of the plaintiff and after the death of her father/Muhammad Ali she was entitled to inherit her property along with her other sisters who have transferred their shares in favour of the plaintiff.
7. There is also concurrent finding of fact against the petitioners. The Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees took a count of every bit of evidence placed before them and were not shown to have been overlooked any part of the record from their judicious consideration. Findings of the lower Courts on question of fact and law based on proper appreciation, of oral as well as documentary evidence led in the suit, were not susceptible, to review, to be upset or substituted in revisional jurisdiction and the same could not be upset merely on the ground that another view of evidence was possible or reappraised. Reliance in this respect can be made to cases of Guldar Khan v. Isa Khan 1993 SCM R 2099; Nazir Ahmad v. Boota 1989 SCM R 450 and Riaz v. Muhammad Saleem 1989 SCM R 1491.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition having no force is dismissed with no order as to costs.