' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---Facts relevant for the disposal of instant civil revision are that Afsar Zaman and Noor Jamil Khan sons of Zaman Khan resident of Yagoobai Tehsil Lahore District Swabi instituted suit against their co-villagers Ayub Khan and others, defendants, for a declaration to the effect that plaintiffs and defendant No,33 were owner in possession of suit-land detailed in the plaint, by dint of compromise/family settlement dated 29-12-1997 and the entries in the Revenue Record, contrary to it, were illegal, void, based on fraud and liable to rectification. A prayer for grant of permanent injunction restraining defendants Nos.1 to 32 from interfering in the rights of the plaintiffs and defendant No,33, was also made.
2. The suit. Was contested by defendants Nos. 1 to 7, 8 to 17 and 19 to 28 while remaining defendants admitted the claim of the plaintiffs and defendant No,33 and filed 'Iqbal Dawa' in their favour. In view of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for trial:- ISSUES
(1) Whether the plaintiffs have got a cause of action?
(2) Whether the suit is competent in its present form?
(3) Whether the suit is within time?
(4) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to sue?
(5) Whether the suit is partial?
(6) Whether the suit is liable to affixation of court-fee?
(7) Whether defendants Nos.1 to 7 are owners in possession of the property in Khasra No,205.1?
(8) Whether any compromise was effected amongst the parties, if so, to what extent, effect and consequence on the right of the parties?
(9) Whether defendants Nos.1 to 7 were allotted Khasra No,2057/1 during consolidation proceedings?
(10) Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No,33 are owners in possession of the suit property?
(11) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration/injunction as prayed for?
(12) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for specific performance/possession as prayed for?
(13) Whether the consolidation proceedings in respect of the suit property was conducted in accordance with law?
(14) Relief.
3. After recording such evidence as the parties wished to adduce, learned Civil. Judge, Lahor by his judgment and decree dated 7-11-2002 proceeded to hold that, plaintiffs have failed to prove private agreement (Exh.P.W. 2/1) dated 29-12-1997 and defendants Nos.1 to 7 are owners in possession of 16 Marlas of land in Khasra No,2051. It was also held that as the remaining defendants have submitted 'Iqbal Dawa' admitting the claim of the plaintiffs and defendant No,33, the private agreement is effective and they are bound by it. Having held so partial decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs against defendants Nos.8 to 32 as prayed for, while suit against defendants Nos.1 to 7 was dismissed. An appeal was preferred there against which did not succeed. The same was dismissed by judgment dated 26-10-2002 by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, District Swabi.
4. Mr. Muhammad Zahir Shah, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, vigorously contended that impugned judgments and decrees of the lower Courts regarding dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners in respect of 16 Marlas of land out of Khasra No,2051, are illegal, against facts and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel maintained that the Courts below have misread the evidence on record and have proceeded on wrong premises to dismiss the suit.
The plaintiffs/petitioners have fully proved from cogent evidence that a compromise was effected between the parties vide compromise deed dated 29-12-1997 which was duly signed by Said Mashal, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 7 and on the basis of this compromise, suit property was given to the plaintiffs/petitioners and this compromise was not objected to during the lifetime of late Said Mashal. The learned counsel also assailed the findings of the trial Court on Issue No,9 stating that Khasra No,2057/1 entered in the compromise deed was the ownership of Mir Abdullah, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.8 to 17 and in lieu thereof the plaintiffs/petitioners had given their land in Khasra No,1578/1 to Mir Abdullah and Khasra No,2051 was given to the plaintiffs/petitioners but the learned Courts below erred in law to hold otherwise.
The learned counsel also submitted that impugned judgment of first appellate Court is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. And cannot be allowed to remain intact.
Concluding the arguments, learned counsel requested for remand of the case to the trial Court to determine the question of ownership of the property in suit.
5. Mr. Fateh Muhammad Khan, Advocate learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below maintaining that findings on question of facts 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.
Various authorities were cited in support of the contention.
6. Though the reappraisal of evidence, is not permissible in revisional jurisdiction, yet as the petitioners have claimed misreading of evidence I have undertaken this exercise to satisfy myself and to verify the propriety of judgments and decrees impugned herein. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below are based on correct appreciation of the evidence and hardly call for interference- of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Despite having been asked repeatedly to point out the evidence misread or non-read by the Courts below, learned counsel for the petitioners has remained unable to do so. The mere assertion of the learned counsel that impugned judgments and decrees suffer from the vice of misreading and non-reading of evidence, without a positive attempt on his part to substantiate the same, is of no consequence.
7. Adverting to the objection raised on behalf of the petitioners regarding noncompliance of the provision of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C., I find that learned appellate Court was alive to the situation and the issue involved has been dealt with and decided in a careful manner. The appellate Court had given its findings on all the points of controversy and no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioners. So far as the question of giving issue-wise findings by the appellate Court is concerned the same is not the requirement of law as under Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. The appellate Court is to state the points for determination, give its decision thereon and reasons for the. Said decision be also mentioned. Umer Din v.
Ghazanfar and 2 others (1991 SCMR 1868) and Mst. Husna Bano v. Faiz Muhammad and another (2000 CLC 709).
8. The last submission of the learned petitioners' counsel that appellate Court had failed to record judgment issue-wise and separately in terms of the requirement of Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C. And thus he is fit for remand in terms of Order XLI, rule 23, thereof, the submission is equally without force.
Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C. Is evidently applicable to the original Court, which hears a civil suit. As regards appellate Court, the requirement of recording finding issue-wise is not mandatory. It is sufficient for the appellate Court to deal with all the issues as are material for disposal of the controversy excepting those abandoned by the appellant. An appellate Court recording its findings on the points raised before it, without discussing the issues separately cannot be said to have committed any illegality or error. The appellate and the revisional Courts are always empowered to remand the case in terms of Order XLI, rule 25, C.P.C. But this discretionary power is used only in exceptional situation and if the parties have led evidence with regard to the particular point and the Court of first instance by giving specific finding on the said point decided the same in the light of evidence available on record, the remand of the case in appeal or revision is not proper exercise of the jurisdiction.
9. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the civil revision fails which is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.