MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J. --- Brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are to the effect that Naseeb Khatoon plaintiff/respondent herein had instituted a suit for possession through pre-emption on a sale of ' land C.L.R. measuring 20-Kanals, 2-Marlas made through mutation of sale No. 920, dated 27.06.2001 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mianwali, against the petitioners/defendants, who filed their written statement denying the averments of the plaint. From the factual controversy appearing on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court led to frame the various issues. After recording and appreciating the evidence of the parties, pro and contra, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondent vide, judgment and decree dated 01.06.2005 for a consideration of Rs. 6,60,000/-. Both the parties challenged the judgment and decree of the Trial Court by filing their separate appeals, Civil Appeal No. 71/192/2005 and Civil Appeal No. 66/193/2005, which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali, who vide a consolidated judgment and decree dated 18.04.2006 accepted the appeal of Mst. Naseeb Khatoon plaintiff/respondent and reduced the incidental charges to Rs. 45,000/- setting aside the findings of the Trial Court on Issue No. 7, while the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners/defendants. Both these judgments and decrees have been assailed by the petitioners through the instant revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has objected the findings of the lower Appellate Court on Issue No. 1 superior right of pre-emption contending that the plaintiff/respondent failed to establish her superior right of pre-emption and there is no evidence on record to establish that the property of the pre-emptor/plaintiff was adjacent or contiguous to the property in dispute. Further contended that the Courts below have mis-appreciated the evidence of the respondent and also failed to take into consideration the oral as well as the documentary evidence of the petitioner/defendants. Further contended that the copy of Aks Shajra Ex.P-12 has not been proved by the Patwari Revenue. Further contended that the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below is result of mis-reading and non-readings of evidence and not sustainable in the law.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
4. To support her superior right of pre-emption the plaintiff/respondent produced copy of register record of rights for the year 1996-97 Ex.P-11 which indicates that the plaintiff/respondent is owner of Khasra No. 129/7. This was also supported by Aks Shajra Ex.P-12 and copy of the Aks Shajra Ex.D-4. It is established that the property of the plaintiff is adjacent to Khasra No. 129/7, which is part of the suit property. The petitioners themselves produced the document Ex. D-4, copy of Aks Shajra. This document has also not been got exhibited through the Patwari Revenue. Khasra No. 129/7 property in dispute and Khasra No. 129/4 are adjacent to each other having a common boundary line/WATT.
The documents Ex.P-12 and Ex.D-4 are the copies of Aks Shajra produced by the parties. Both are not in conflict with each other rather tally with Parcha Shajra/Aks Shajra maintained by the Patwari.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to distinguish between the two documents.
Both the Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees have taken into consideration all the important oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties.
Both the Courts below have observed that the respondent/plaintiff has been able to establish her superior right of pre-emption. There are concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners. It is settled proposition that findings on question of fact or law recorded by Court of competent jurisdiction, could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction by the High Court unless those findings suffered from irregularities, or jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularities.
Reference in this context can be made to the case of Muhammad Ismail Khaliq Anees Ahmad (2002 YLR 3840). This judgment has been passed keeping in view the findings of the superior Court in the case of Abdul Rahim and another v. Mst. Jantay Bibi and others (2000 S.C.M.R. 346). Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others (2000 S.C.M.R. 431), Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994 S.C. 291). Revision petition applies to involving illegal assumption , non-exercise or irregular exercise of jurisdiction, and it cannot be invoked against conclusion of law or fact which do not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the Court no matter however, erroneous, wrong or perverse the decision might be either on a question of fact or law, unless the decision involves a matter of jurisdiction as erroneous conclusion of law or fact is liable to be corrected in - appeal but revision will not be competent on such a ground unless an error of law has been committed in arriving at such conclusion. Reliance in this context can be made to the case of Gui Raza v. Sargand (2002 P.L.R. 1906).
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also not been able to point out any illegality or an act without material irregularity. The term 'acted illegally' means acting in breach of some provisions of law and the term 'acted with material irregularity' refers to committing of some error of procedure in the course of trial which is material, in that it may affect the ultimate decision. The learned counsel for the petitioners has miserably failed to persuade to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition being devoid of force is dismissed in limine. .