IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.7.1998, passed by Additional District Judge, Peshawar, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, which was filed against the judgment and decree of Civil Judge, Peshawar, dated 18.10.1997, who had decreed suit of respondent against the petitioner for award of Rs. 24,500/-, as damages.
2. The relevant facts for the decision of the civil revision are that Subagtageen Khan plaintiff, instituted suit against Sahar Gul, defendant on 2.10.1995, for recovery of Rs. 24,500/- as damages for defamation etc. It was disclosed in the plaint that plaintiff is running a school in Property No. CC-45/741/1 to 10 situated in Hashtangri Gate, Peshawar City and defendant is in occupation of shop in the ground floor of the building. On persistent complaints of the defendant, plaintiff dismantled the roof of the shop with the consent and permission of the defendant in order to carry out the necessary repairs. The plaintiff at the instance of Akhtar Ali and Mst. Hafiza Begum, filed suit for permanent injunction on 5.7.1994 against the plaintiff, alongwith an application for grant of temporary injunction and succeeded to obtain a status quo order. The suit was dismissed for non- prosecution on 10.4.1995. The restoration application was also withdrawn on 4.5.1995. According to the plaintiff, material collected for the repair of the roof, was destroyed and the plaintiff and his students suffered mental torture and tension. The suit was resisted and claim of the plaintiff was denied. As many as 13 issues were framed for trial. The parties led their respective evidence. The Trial Court heard the arguments and proceeded to decree the suit vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.1997, holding that claim of the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 9,500/- as fee of his counsel and costs of maerial is quite reasonable. The plaintiff and his students suffered mental torture and tension and they are entitled for recovery of Rs. 15,000/-. The learned Court pointed out that as far as question of assessing the said mental torture and tension is concerned, suck like damages fall in the category of general damages, for which no yardstick or definite principle of assessm ent has been'and/or can be laid down with precision. The defendant feeling aggrieved, decided to impugn the same through the appeal before the District Judge, Peshawar. The appeal was entrusted to Additional District Judge, Peshawar, who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 15.7.1998, giving rise to the filing of instant civil revision.
3. Criticizing the impugned judgments and decrees of the two Courts below, Qazi Abdul Basit, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, strenuously contended that the respondent miserably failed to prove any material loss as claimed by him with any cogent evidence and both the Courts below have exercised their jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. The learned counsel also submitted that the findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from the vice of misreading and non-reading of evidence on the record and cannot be allowed to remain in tact.
4. Miss. Nusrat Yasmin, Advocate, representing the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that no case of misreading and non-reading of evidence has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner nor has any legal infirmity been pointed out. Both the Courts below have recorded reasoned judgments and reached to the proper conclusion.
5. Although this Court is not . Called upon to reappraise the evidence to 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 consonance with the material on record and no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioner. 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. Material, evidence on the record has been duly considered and appreciated by the courts below and no significant error in this behalf has been shown to me.
6. It is well-settled law that a concurrent finding of facts by two Courts below cannot be disturbed by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C. Unless the two Courts below while recording the finding of fact have either misread the evidence or ignored any material piece of evidence on record or the finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below is- perverse to the evidence on record. It is well-settled that it only lies on the ground of error or law of error in procedure which may have affected the decisions of the case upon merits. In this view of the matter, I am fortified by the observations made in Muhammad Anwar vs. Muhammad Siddique Hashim (PLD 1992 SC 838) and Sughra Bibi vs. Aziz Begum and 4 others (1.996 SCMR 137). I may profitably quote here the observations made in Abdul Matin and others appellants vs. Mst.
'Mustakhia respondent (2006 SCM R 50):-- "There is no cavil to the proposition that the concurrent finding on a question of fact or mixed question of law and facts, if is found suffering from . Misreading or non-reading of evidence or based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence, the High Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction should correct the error committed by the subordinate Courts but in absence of any defect of misreading or non-reading of evidence in the concurrent finding of two Courts on such question, the interference of the High Court in the civil revision would amount to improper exercise of revisional jurisdiction. This is settled law that reexamination and reappraisal of evidence is not permissible in revisional jurisdiction even if conclusion drawn by the subordinate Courts on a question of fact was erroneous. The revisional power of High Court is exercised for correcting an error committed by the subordinate Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction and mere erroneous decision would not call for interference unless it is established that the decision was based on no evidence or the evidence relied upon was inadmissible or the decision was perverse so as to cause grave injustice. This is settled law that the High Court in revisional jurisdiction cannot upset the concurrent findings of fact by means of reexamination of evidence."
7. As learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any misreading or .Non- reading of evidence in the impugned judgments which can enable this Court to disturb the concurrent findings of the two Courts below in exercise of power contemplated by Section 115, C.P.C. And it could also not be established that the Courts below have committed any jurisdictional illegality or material irregularity. The civil revision in hand fails, which is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.