Shortly narrated the facts, giving rise to the filing of instant revision petition are, that Arshad Iqbal and others, plaintiffs instituted suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar, against Muhammad Iqbal and his father Altaf Hussain, defendants, claiming a declaration to the effect that plaintiffs were owners to the extent of share in respect of suit house, including shop and garage, situated in mohallah Jangi, Peshawar City having inherited the same from their predecessor-in-interest Mst. Nizakat Sultan. The plaintiffs also prayed for issuance of perpetual injunction partition and recovery of possession. The suit was resisted on all grounds, legal as well as factual. The parties were put to trial on as many as fourteen issues. For the purpose of disposal of instant civil revision, I am concerned with Issues Nos, 7 and 8, which are to the following effect:-- "7. Whether plaintiffs are owners to the extent of share in suit house?
8. Whether Defendant No, 2 had incurred Rs, 50,000/- as expenses on marriage of Nizakat Begum in lieu of her half share in the suit property. If so, its effect?"
2. Learned Civil Judge, Peshawar, seized of the matter, upon consideration and appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective contentions, found Issue No, 7 in affirmative and Issue No, 8 in negative and resultantly, decreed suit in favour of plaintiffs, as prayed for, vide judgment and decree dated 10.4.2004. An appeal was preferred thereagainst, which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Peshawar, through judgment dated 7.12.2004.
Feeling aggrieved thereby, instant revision petition has been filed, which is before me for consideration.
3. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Qazi Abdul Basit, Advocate contended with force that the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are lacunic and suffer from the vice of misreading and non-reading of evidence on record and that the matter has been dealt with in a cursory manner without application of independent mind, which has resulted in complete failure of justice. The learned counsel reiterated that learned trial Court knowingly that the claim of the plaintiffs is for half of the suit house including garage and shop, decreed half of the suit alongwith whole shop and garage in favour of the plaintiffs, which is against the spirit and contents of Tamleek Nama (Ex. PW.1/1) dated 26.10.1974.
4. As against that, Mr. Ihsanullah, Advocate for the respondents defended the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, maintaining that the material on the file has been considered and appreciated in right direction and concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below are immune from scrutiny and hardly warrant interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
5. The parties are closely related to each other. Arshad Iqbal, Zahid Iqbal, Mudasir Hayat plaintiffs are sons and Iqbal Ilahi, plaintiff is husband of Mst. Nizakat Sultan. Mst. Nizakat Sultan, is sister of Muhammad Iqbal and daughter of Iltaf Hussain petitioner. She is claimed to have inherited the suit property from her mother Mst Zamrud Begum deceased. Muhammad Iqbal petitioner is stated to have incurred an amount of Rs, 50,000/- on the marriage of Mst. Nizakat Sultan. She is said to have surrendered her share in favour of Muhammad Iqbal in lieu thereof.
6. I have given my mature consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material on the record.
7. Although this Court is not called upon to reappraise the evidence on record in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, yet, in the interest of justice, I have gone through the evidence and find that the reasoning recorded by the Courts below are in harmony with the material on record and no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioners. The contents of the Tamleek Nama (Ex.
PW.1/1) dated 26.10.1974 have been rightly interpreted and appreciated. The Courts below have rightly clinched the factual controversy, have dealt with the matter in a thread bare manner and came to the concurrent conclusion after due application of independent mind, which cannot be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court have elaborately discussed every aspect of the case and have dealt with the same in detail, leaving no room for further consideration. It is settled law that findings on question of fact or law recorded by competent Court of law/jurisdiction cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction unless those findings suffer from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularity. The jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is very limited. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC can only interfere with the orders of the subordinate Courts on the grounds, that the Courts below assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in it, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law or that the Court below has acted with material irregularity affecting its jurisdiction in the case.
8. The process of examination of evidence for upsetting a concurrent finding of fact in exercise of powers under Section 115, CPC in my view is neither permissible nor warranted by law. As earlier pointed out by me, interference with a finding of fact of the Courts below by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC could only be justified if such finding is the result of perverse appreciation of evidence on record. A wrong or erroneous conclusion on a question of fact by the Courts below is not open to interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. I may also mention here that the High Court while examining a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC has to attend to the reasons given by the Courts below in support of such finding and misreading, non-reading or perverse appreciation of evidence has to be discovered in the reasonings of the Courts below to justify interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
9. Revisional jurisdiction is directed against irregular exercise, non-exercise or illegal assumption of jurisdiction and not against conclusions of fact or law not involving question of jurisdiction.
10. The words illegality or with material irregularity, have reference to material defects of procedure and not to errors of law or fact after formalities which the law prescribes, have been complied with.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out the breach of any provisions of law or commission of any error of procedure by the Courts below.
In the result and for the forgoing reasons, it follows that the learned trial Judge as well as the learned appellate Court have taken a rightful decision which is in consonance with the evidence on the file. No misreading or non-reading of evidence is proved and at the same time, the judgments of the Courts below are not shown to have been tainted with any illegality or irregularity in absence of which, no interference is permissible in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. There is no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.