' CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.--- The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the judgment dated 27-1- 2003 wherein the learned High Court had not disturbed the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below in revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of C.P.C.
2. The necessary facts out of which the present petition arises are that the petitioner filed suit for permanent injunction against the respondent along with an application for ad interim injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Pasrur on 20-11-2000. The learned trial Court dismissed the application for ad interim relief. Resultantly the suit of the petitioner was also dismissed as the suit had become infructuous. Petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge Pasrur who also dismissed the same. Thereafter the petitioner filed civil revision in the Lahore High Court, Lahore which also met with the same fate. Hence, the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the Courts below had non-suited the petitioner by misreading and non-reading of the record. He further submits that the trial Court had erred in law to dismiss the suit of the petitioner while dismissing the application for temporary injunction. He further submits that the trial Court had erred in law to dismiss the suit without framing the issues and recording of evidence of the parties.
4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the available record. The First Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner observed that petitioner had handed over the possession of the land in question to the respondent.
It is better to reproduce the operative part of the findings of the First Appellate Court to resolve the controversy between parties:-- "During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant has admitted that the appellant has handed over possession of disputed land to the respondent therefore, the suit filed by the appellant has become infructuous."
5. The aforesaid findings were also approved by the learned High Court in the impugned judgment as evident from para.6 of the impugned judgment. All the contentions raised before us were exactly the same which were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Courts below and were rejected by the First Appellate Court with cogent reasons as evident from para.8 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court and thereafter the learned High Court has also rejected the same after considering the material on record as evident from para.6 of the impugned judgment. It is settled law that findings on questions of fact or law, howsoever, erroneous the same may be recorded by a Court of competent jurisdiction, cannot be interfered with by the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, under section 115, C.P.C. Unless such findings suffer from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularity. In N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar's case PLD 1949 PC 26. The relevant observation is as follows:-- "This section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself upon three matters; (1) that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (2) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (3) that in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however, profoundly, from the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law."
6. This Court has prescribed parameters/guidelines for the High Court to exercise power under section 115, C.P.C. See Mst. Shumal Begum's case 1994 SCM R 818, Muhammad Bashir's case 2003 SCM R 83, Muhammad Bakhsh's case 2003 SCM R 286 and Imam Din's case PLD 2005 SC 418. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to bring the case within the parameters prescribed by the Privy Council and this Court in the aforesaid judgments. It is also an admitted fact that all the Courts below had given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner and this Court does not interfere with the findings of fact reached by all the Courts below when it is satisfied that the findings of the Courts below are on the whole reasonable and are not arrived at by disregarding any provision of law or any accepted principle concerning the appreciation of evidence. This would be notwithstanding that a different view might also be possible. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court coupled with the fact that petitioner's counsel has also faisled to raise any legal question, therefore, the petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. Leave declined.