' CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.--- The petitioners have sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 8-5-2002 wherein the learned High Court had set aside the orders of the Courts below in revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.
2. Brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that in obedience of the advertisement of the petitioners for the recovery of cattle market fee for the year 1983-84 in Rajanpur District, respondent participated in the auction proceedings. His bid was highest amounting to Rs,1,79,000 and an agreement was also executed between the petitioners and respondent. According to the terms of the agreement, the respondent had to pay the contract money in monthly instalments.
Respondents initially had paid some instalments in terms of the agreement but subsequently failed to pay the remaining instalments even after the expiry of the contract. District Collector, Rajanpur vide orders dated 17-11-1993 and 18-11-1993 requested the District Collector, Mianwali to recover the outstanding amount from the respondent amounting to Rs,61,700. District Collector, Mianwali initiated proceedings against the respondent in view of, aforesaid orders of the District Collector, Rajanpur. Respondent being aggrieved filed suit for declaration in the Court of Civil Judge, Mianwali to the effect that the petitioners/ defendants be restrained from recovery of any money from the respondent as arrears of land revenue. Petitioners filed application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of the plaint on the ground that trial Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. The learned trial Court accepted the application vide order, dated 30-10-1994. Respondent being aggrieved filed appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Mianwali who also dismissed the appeal. Respondent being aggrieved filed civil revision before the Lahore High Court which was accepted vide impugned judgment dated 8-5-2002 and set aside the orders of the Courts below and directed the trial Court to decide the case in accordance with law in the following terms:-- "The suit shall proceed onits' own merits in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Mianwali."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that learned High Court had erred in law to set aside the concurrent judgments of both the Courts below while exercising power under section 115, C.P.C. He further submits that both the Courts below i,e, the trial Court and the first Appellate Court were justified to accept the application of the petitioners with cogent reasons as the cause of action was accrued to the respondent in District Rajanpur in terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties whereas the learned High Court had erred in law to reject the application without adverting to the terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties.
4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the record. It is an admitted fast that the learned District Collector, Rajanpur had determined the outstanding arrears of the petitioners against the respondent amounting to Rs,61,700 and thereafter vide orders dated 17-11-1993 and 18-11-1993 requested the District Collector Mianwali to recover the said amount from the respondent/contractor/plaintiff as arrears of land revenue. The District Collector, Mianwali had initiated the proceedings against the respondent in terms of the ,aforesaid orders of the District Collector, Rajanpur, therefore, cause of action partly had arisen at Mianwali, therefore, learned High Court was justified to reverse the judgments and orders of the Courts below while exercising power under section 115, C.P.C. The impugned judgment of the learned High Court is in accordance with section 20(c) of C.P.C. And law laid down by various pronouncements of this Court and superior Courts. See Jawahar Singh's case AIR 1926 Lah. 277 and Muhammad Yasin's case PLD 1993 SC 395. It is pertinent to mention here that learned High Court after reappraisal of evidence on record had come to a definite conclusion that the part of cause of action had accrued to the respondent at Mianwali. This Court, normally, does not interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the High Court while exercising power under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.
5. For what has been discussed above, the petition has no merit which is dismissed. Leave declined.