IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 28-1-2004, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karak, whereby the appeal arising from judgment and decree dated 18-7-2002, passed by learned Civil Judge, Karak has been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts are, that Mst. Zeenat Bibi and others plaintiffs, instituted suit on 25-9-1999 for declaration to the effect that Mutation No.10141, attested on 13-9-1973 is the result of fraud, ineffective against the rights of plaintiffs and liable to cancellation. They also prayed for possession of suit property.
3. Defendant No.1 contested the suit and submitted the written statement. He claimed to have purchased suit property from plaintiffs for consideration. The divergent pleadings of the parties gave rise to the framing of following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiffs have got a cause of action?
(2) Whether the suit is within time?
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to sue?
(4) Whether suit is maintainable in its present form?
(5) Whether the suit is wrong, baseless and against facts?
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for?
(7) Relief.
4. After recording such evidence as the parties wished to adduce and hearing respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Judge allowed suit vide judgment and decree, dated 18-7-2002. An appeal was preferred there against, which did not succeed. The appeal was dismissed vide judgment, dated 28-1-2004 by learned Additional District Judge, Karak.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are outcome of misreading and non-reading of evidence; that from the evidence it is proved that at the time of attestation of the disputed mutation, respondents were major; that petitioners /defendants have discharged their burden to prove the disputed Mutation No. 10141 attested on 13-9-1973 to be correct and the plaintiffs/ respondents have failed to prove the allegations of fraud against the petitioner; that no issue on the point of minority of plaintiffs/ respondents has been framed and that the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court is not in consonance with the requirements of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. Learned counsel maintained that when issues had been framed, the Appellate Court was bound to record its findings on each and every issue raised unless the findings on one of the issues obviated the necessity of giving findings on the remaining issues. In this regard reference was placed on Saifullah Khan and others v.
Muhammad Azam and others 2004 CLC 8 (Peshawar) and Mst. Wajda Begum and others v. Mst.
Shamim Akhtar and others 2004 CLC 231 (Peshawar).
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below maintaining that the same are unexceptionable and do not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity, calling for revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
7. On the careful assessm ent of the evidence available on record, I am of the considered view that the finding of the fact recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court are based on correct and fair appraisal of evidence and the grounds urged stand conclusively determined by the judgments of the Courts below.
8. It is well-settled principle of law that in case the trial Court has exercised jurisdiction which is upheld by the First Appellate Court, then this Court seldom interferes unless and until the discretion is exercised arbitrarily. It is also settled principle of law that this Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in concurrent findings of Courts below while exercising jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C., unless and until judgments of the Courts below are outcome of misreading or non-reading of evidence or decision of the case is in violation of parameters prescribed by the superior Courts.
9. Reverting to the other objection raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding non-compliance of requirements of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. No doubt, it is true that the characteristic of a good judgment is that it must be self-evident and self-explanatory, in other words, it must contain reasons that justify conclusions arrived at and these reasons should be such that a disinterested reader can find them convincing at least reasonable. In the instant case all the legal formalities have been duly complied with and no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioners. The learned Appellate Court has given elaborate findings on each and every point. The judgment of the Appellate Court has been recorded keeping in view the provisions contained in Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C.
Having considered the matter from all angles, I find that neither any non-reading or misreading of evidence nor any material irregularity nor any jurisdictional defect could be pointed out to justify interference. The civil revision, having been found destitute of merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs.