' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- Facts necessary for the disposal of instant civil revision are that Abdul Manan and others, plaintiffs brought suit on 24-9-1998, claiming a declaration to the effect that plaintiffs were owners in possession of suit-land, having inherited the same from their predecessor-in-interest late Samandar Khan; that defendants had no concern with suit-land and mutations by defendants Nos.3 to 6 in favour of the remaining defendants were illegal, void based on fraud and liable to cancellation. The plaintiffs also prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the hereditary rights of the plaintiffs. A prayer for possession through partition was also made.
2. The suit was contested by the defendants on all grounds legal, as well as factual. The defendants denied the rights of the plaintiffs and claimed to have effected improvements over the property in suit. In view of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the plaintiffs have got a cause of action?
(2) Whether the suit is incorrect in its present form?
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to sue due to their own conduct?
(4) Whether the suit is time-barred?
(5) Whether the suit is incompetent due to non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties?
(6) Whether the defendants had made improvement over the suit-land, if so, to what extent and its effect?
(7) Whether the sale mutation in respect of suit property by defendants Nos.3 to 6 in favour of other defendants are fictitious, against law and facts and inoperative upon the rights of plaintiffs?
(8) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for?
(9) Relief.
3. At the conclusion of trial, learned Civil Judge, Takht Bhai, seized of the matter, upon consideration of the material available on record, decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 9-5-2001. An appeal was preferred thereagainst which did not succeed. The same was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Mardan at Takht Bhai vide judgment dated 4-10-2001. Hence, instant civil revision.
4. Mr. Muhammad Ismail Khalil, Advocate for the petitioners attempted to argue that both the Courts below have arrived at a wrong conclusion and have ignored the material evidence on record and committed gross illegality and irregularity in accepting the claim of the plaintiffs and decreeing the suit. The learned counsel next contended that question of improvements has not been attended to and in case' of decree for possession, petitioners were entitled for cost of improvements.
5. Sheikh Wazir Muhammad, Advocate for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the Courts below and contended that the sanie are unexceptionable and do not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity calling for interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. A number of authorities were cited by the learned counsel in support of his submissions.
6. 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 reasonings recorded by the Courts below are in consonance with the evidence on record and no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality by way of misreading and non-reading of evidence by the Courts below. The trial Court as well as appellate Court have elaborately discussed every aspect of the case and have dealt with the case in detail, leaving no room for further consideration. The learned trial Judge has taken pains to appraise the evidence on record in a correct manner. He neither misread nor omitted from consideration any material piece of evidence. The conclusions drawn by him from the evidence/material on record are fully justified in the circumstances of the case. The learned Appellate Court had valid reasons to affirm the same.
7. The process of examination of evidence for upsetting a concurrent finding of fact in exercise of powers under section 115, C.P.C. 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, C.P.C. 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, C.P.C. The High Court while examining a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. 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 reasoning of the Courts below to justify interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
8. So far as the question regarding improvements is concerned, there is nothing on the file to demonstrate that improvements were effected on the property in suit and as such petitioners were entitled to receive cost of improvements. The contention is repelled.
9. No other point has been raised and rightly so.
10. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the civil revision fails which is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.