ORDER KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.~, Plaintiff- petitioner succeeded in obtaining a decree for possession through pre-emption from the Trial Court as well as from the first Appellate Court.
Respondent's revision, however, was allowed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, on the ground, that the Trial Court was wrong in disallowing the application of respondents for permission to adduce secondary evidence which evidence would have some relevance to issue No. 2 viz. "whether plaintiff made all the Talabs in accordance with law?", the only issue argued before the learned Judge.
2. It is contended by Mr. S. M. Masood, learned ASG that the application to adduce secondary evidence was rejected on 1.4.1996 which order was never challenged either independently or in appeal against the decree, in the first Appellate Court and in the circumstances it cannot be said that the first Appellate Court exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
According to Mr. Masood in the absence of such a finding, the revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised. *
3. In reply Syed Muhammad Kaleem Ahmed Khurshid, learned ASC appearing for respondents has not been able to show that the order dated 1.4.1996 passed by the Trial Court was challenged before the Appellate Court.
4. 1n the circumstances, therefore, it does seem that the High Court has wrongly, exercised its jurisdiction under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Court has been lying down time and again that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are not liable to be interfered with unless the same can be shown to have been arrived at in disregard or mis-reading of material evidence or are otherwise perverse, In the present case the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had answered the issue as regards Talabs in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. The impugned order does not show that this finding suffered from such an illegality or infirmity which invited the exercise of Jurisdiction by the High Court. Additionally as the Order dated 1.4.1996 of the Trial Court could have been but had not been challenged in appeal before the first Appellate Court, the revisional jurisdiction could not have been exercised, in the facts and circumstances of this case, on this ground.
5. For what has been stated above, we convert this petition into appeal and allow the same. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the first Appellate Court affirming judgment and decree of the Trial Court is restored. No order as to cost.