' IJAZ-UL-HASAN KHAN, J.---Concisely stated the facts, giving rise to the filing of instant civil revision are that Muhammad Akbar, plaintiff instituted suit against Alif Khan and others, defendants, claiming a declaration to the effect that plaintiff was owner in possession of suit-land, detailed in the plaint, by virtue of oral sale and entries in the Revenue Record incorporated during the settlement, in the name of late Esa Khan, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, were illegal, void and ineffective on the right of the plaintiff and liable to cancellation. The plaintiff also prayed for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants to interfere in his possessery rights or alienate the suit-land in any manner. In the alternative, he also prayed for possession of suit-land in case he was not found in possession of the same. The plaintiff averred that after purchase he remained in continuous possession of suit-land. The defendants filed produce suit and when the plaintiff inspected the Revenue Record, it transpired that suit-land has been entered in the name of late Esa Khan.
2. The suit was resisted on all grounds, legal as well as factual and claim of the plaintiff was denied.
Relevant issues were framed and after recording pro and contra evidence, suit was dismissed by judgment and decree, dated 11-3-2005 of learned Illaqa Qazi/Civil Judge, Buner. An appeal was preferred thereagainst, which did not succeed. The same was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Buner at Dagger, by his judgment, dated 6-7-2006.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below have been recorded in a mechanical manner without application of independent judicious mind and in total disregard to the material on the file that respondents completely failed to prove stance taken in the written statement that the property in suit has been given to the petitioner on the basis of Zamindarr (cultivation share); that the impugned judgments are violative of the provisions of Order XLI rule 23 and Order XX rule 5 C.P.C. And case is fit for remand.
4. Though the reappraisal of evidence is not permissible in revisional jurisdiction, yet as the petitioner has claimed misreading and non-reading of evidence and wrong incorporation of entries in the Revenue Record, I have undertaken this exercise to satisfy myself and to verify the propriety of judgments and decrees impugned herein. The concurrence of facts recorded by the Courts below 'are based on correct appreciation of evidence and are not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Despite having been asked repeatedly to point out the evidence, statedly misread or non-read by the Courts below, learned counsel for the petitioner has remained unable to do so. The onus to prove the factum of oral sale, was heavily placed on the shoulders of the petitioner, being beneficiary, but he has miserably failed to discharge the same. The evidence produced by him is discrepant, contradictory and suffers from infirmities. The petitioner has not been able to show that the entries incorporated in the Revenue Record were illegal and void qua his rights and, as such, liable to rectification.
5. Adverting to. The objection raised on behalf of the petitioner, regarding non-compliance of the provisions 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. Husan Bano. v. Faiz Muhammad and another (2000 CLC 709).
6. The last submission of the learned 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 B Court, which hears a civil suit. As regards appellate Court, the requirement 9f recording finding issue-wise is not mandatary. 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 tothe 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.
' In the result and for the forgoing discussion, the civil revision tails, which is hereby dismissed in limine.