' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- Shortly narrated the facts are, that Mst. Bibi Aman, plaintiff instituted suit on 19-9-1997, against Said Ghani, Shabar and Muhammad Akram, defendants, claiming a declaration to the effect that plaintiff was owner in possession of suit property, detailed in the plaint, by virtue of `Mehar Nama' dated 20-12-1989; that defendant No,3 had no right to sell the suit property without consent and permission of the plaintiff and that sale by him in favour of defendants 1 and 2, was illegal, void and inoperative on the rights of the plaintiff. A prayer for possession of suit property, in case the plaintiff was not found in possession of the same, was also made.
' The plaintiff further prayed for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants to interfere in her possessory rights. It was averred in the plaint that plaintiff was legally wedded wife of defendant No,3 and he had transferred the property in suit in favour of the plaintiff in lieu of dower but during the pendency of the suit, defendant No,3 divorced the plaintiff and sold the property in suit in favour of defendants 1 and 2, which necessitated the filing of suit.
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 pro and contra evidence was recorded. Learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi, Malakand at Batkhela, seized of the matter, did not accept the claim of the plaintiff and dismissed her suit by judgment and decree, dated 13-4-1999. An appeal was preferred thereagainst before learned District Judge/Zilla Qazi, Malakand at Batkhela, which was accepted by judgment dated 3-6-1999 and the matter was remanded to the trial Court with direction to decide the same afresh on merits after formulating fresh issues and affording an opportunity to the parties to produce evidence in support of their respective contentions. After remand, issues were recast and necessary evidence was recorded. The suit was allowed, vide judgment ana decree, dated 17-1-2004, which was maintained in appeal by judgment, dated 3-11-2004.
3. Said Ghani, petitioner, feeling aggrieved thereby, has filed instant civil revision, which is before me for consideration.
4. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Qazi Muhammad Jamil, Advocate, contended that judgments and decrees of the Courts below are laconic and suffer from the vice of misreading and non-reading of evidence and `Mehar Nama' in question dated 20-12-1989, has been relied upon and made basis of the respondent's No,1 claim without any justification. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel reiterated that remand order of the Appellate Court has not been substantially complied with; that' judgment of the Appellate Court is not in consonance with the requirements of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. And that issues formulated in this case do not fully reflect the pleadings of the parties.
5. Mr. Yousaf Khan Yousafzai, Advocate for answering respondent No,1, on the other hand, contended that the scope of section 115, C.P.C. Is.Limited and as such, this Court cannot interfere in its revisional jurisdiction with the concurring findings on a question of fact, rendered by the Courts below, unless it finds misreading and non-reading of evidence therein.
6. Having adjudged the matter from all angles, I find that the trial Court as well as Appellate Court adverted to every aspect of the case, rightly decided the issues agitated and rendered reasonable judgments, which are not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Both the Courts below have given exhaustive judgment after due appraisal of evidence on the file and after discussing all the prons and cons. There appears to be no legal defect in their judgments, which are in consonance with the evidence on the file. The conclusion of fact arrived concurrently by both the lower Courts is not open to challenge in civil revision, particularly when no specific misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out. It stands established from the material on record that at the time of marriage Muhammad Akram, defendant No,3 had transferred the property in suit in the name of his wife Mst. Bibi Aman, in consideration of dower but subsequently sold it in favour of Said Ghani petitioner, without consent and permission of his wife. The Mehar Nama dated 20-12-1989 has been satisfactorily proved through the deposition of Petition Writer and the marginal witnesses. Nothing in rebuttal has been produced to dislodge the claim of respondent No,1 .
7. Adverting to the objection raised by the petitioner regarding non-compliance of the provision 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 the all the points of controversy and no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioner. So far as the question of giving issue-wise findings by the Appellate Court is concerned, the same is not the requirement of law under Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. Umer Din v. Ghazanfar and 2 others 1991 SCMR 1868.
8. The last submission of the learned petitioner's 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 case 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 Court, which hears a civil suit. As regards Appellate Court, the requirement of recording finding issue-wise is not mandatory. 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. Even otherwise law regarding framing of issues is firmly settled to the effect that where parties enter into trial of the case with all awareness of controversy between them, its framing or non-framing loses importance. Fazal Muhammad Bhatti and another v. Mst.
Saeeda Akhtar and 2 others 1993 SCM R 2018.
9. Learned counsel could neither point out as to which issue was improperly framed nor could he draw my attention to any material portion of evidence which was overlooked or misread by the Appellate Court. Neither there appears to be any misreading of evidence nor any material piece of evidence appears to have been overlooked by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal.
10. Adverting to the question regarding remand, it may be observed that the Appellate and the revision 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 to the 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.
11. In view of what has gone above, it follows that the findings recorded by learned trial Judge and affirmed by learned Appellate Court are not only in consonance with the record of the case but the same are also in accordance with the law on the subject. The civil revision is found bereft of merit, which is dismissed with no order as to costs.