1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- This revision petition calls in question the propriety of concurrent findings reached, by the learned civil Judge vide his judgment/decree dated 26-5-1993 and the learned District Judge vide his judgment/decree dated 26-3-1999, with the prayer for setting both the impugned decrees aside.
2. ' The gist of facts giving rise to the longstanding litigation between the parties is, as under that, the present petitioners filed suit No,32/82 against the present respondent for declaration cum possession regarding suit land, with the contention that, the suit land was owned by the father of the plaintiffs, as the same was awarded to him by the then Ruler of the Nagar State for consideration of Rs,600 cash, two oxen and six sheeps as Salami. The land was barren as such, the father of the plaintiffs, started improvement over the land and made the land cultivable, through construction of channel and breaking the land. The father of the plaintiffs also constructed a residential house over the suit land and also planted fruit/fruitless trees, the father remained in possession of the land for more than 50 years, but unfortune of the father of the plaintiffs ensued with the movement against the Ruler of the State, by the Ulluma and the peoples of the State to topple down the Rajgi System from the area. The movement started in the year 1969 and the father of the plaintiffs stood for the movement and Mir Shoukat Ali Khan the then Raja of the Nagar State turned into avenge against the father of the plaintiffs for his adverse attitude towards him and snatched the suit land from the possession of the father of the plaintiffs and handed over the same to the defendant/respondent and his step father Ashder. Ashder, the step-father of the defendant died within one month of the getting possession of the suit land as such, the defendant remained in exclusive possession of the suit land till 1972 and, in the year 1972, while the father of the plaintiffs had passed away, the plaintiffs succeeded to get back the possession of the suit land from the defendant, but in the same year the defendant again got back the possession of the suit land forcibly, with the help of Mir Shouket Ali Khan and other helpers.
3. ' That, after ending of the Rajgi System in the Nagar State, the Government of Pakistan constituted Ulluma boards with the powers of Civil Courts as such, the plaintiffs/petitioners filed a written solicit before Ulluma boards, the Ulluma board failed to decide the dispute between the parties till its abolition in the year 1975, hence the suit before the regular Civil Court.
4. ' The defendant contested the suit by filing his written statement, with altogether a new story, coupled with certain preliminary objections, as under that , the suit land was awarded to one English Man Gording by the then Ruler of the Nagar State, the Gording had married a woman from Hunza State and had a son from the said lady, named Ashder. Mr. Gording or Gorden left the Nagar State after handing over the suit land to his wife and the son Ashder, hence Mr. Ashder remained in possession of suit land as owner of the same for about 20 or twenty two years and he, himself had broken the land into cultivation, after that Mr. Ashder left the Nagar State, and no one was knowing whereabout of Mr. Ashdar, during that time for about ten years, the suit land went half into possession of Aliyo and half into possession of one Dadu as Amanat. The suit-land remained in possession of Aliyo father of the plaintiffs and one Dadu for about ten years, but Mr. Ashder returned to Nagar in the Year 1957, eventually he got back the land from the said persons, later on father of the plaintiffs received Rs,300 as charges of the improvement over the suit land and endorsed the receipt in this regard. Mr. Ashder gifted the suit land in favour of defendant for his services rendered, as he had married the widow mother of the defendant, hence the defendant owns and is in possession of the suit land since 1957, without any interruption by any body.
5. ' The plaintiffs were given chance by the Trial Court to meet the above story by filing replication and plaintiffs submitted the same and denied the ownership of Gording over the suit land and also stated that, the gift deed executed by Mr. Ashder in favour of defendant and its attestation by the Mir Shouket Ali Khan to be forged, concocted, fraudulent, and result of collusion between Raja and defendant. The litigation between the parties, in its first episode came up to this Court and was remanded back to the Civil Court by the then Chairman of this Court after framing an addition issue in respect of limitation for filing of the suit.
6. ' This revision petition before me is a result of dismissal of the suit by Trial Court as well as the District Court Gilgit in it's 2nd round.
7. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner started his arguments at 11 a.m. And reached into end at 5 p.m., but failed to persuade me on following points legal as well as factual:--
(1) Since, I am in dealing with the concurrent findings of learned lower Court, through this revision petition, as such I may interfere with them, in exercise of my revisional jurisdiction, which is discretionary in its nature, only when, the learned counsel succeeds to point out that, both the learned lower courts have failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exceeded their jurisdiction or have committed any material irregularity or illegality. The Supreme Court as well as the High Courts in Pakistan are of the opinion that, the revisional jurisdiction can not be exercised to interfere even if the impugned findings are erroneous or wrong, either on a question of law or facts, unless the findings involve a matter of jurisdiction, arriving at any other conclusion on fresh assessment and appreciation of evidence is of no avail, hence the learned counsel for the petitioner tried his best to bring this revision petition into the above limited scope to make me attract to interfere with the impugned judgments and argued as:---
(a) That, the plaintiffs have proved through un-shattered evidence on the record that, the suit land was allotted to the father of the . Plaintiffs by the then Raja of the State and since that, up to the year 1969, the suit land was in possession of the father of the plaintiffs and improved by him, but the impugned findings of the lower courts are result of the misreading and non reading of the evidence on the record, but the learned counsel failed to substantiate the point from the record, rather the P.W.1 in rebuttal, concedes in his statement that, "the land owned by Mr. Ashder was later on granted to Aliyo by the Raja", he also accepts that the Raja had given land to Gording in Skandarabad, more over there are gross contradictions in statements of witnesses adduced by the plaintiffs, so the case is not of misreading or non-reading of evidence.
(b) That the plaintiffs have proved through evidence that, the father of the plaintiffs was dispossessed forcibly by the defendant with the help of Mir Shouket Ali Khan and, the gift deed in favour of the defendants was also proved to be forged, concocted and in collusion with the Mir of Nagar Shouket Ali Khan, but the learned lower courts have perversely ignored the record of the case. This point also gets no help from the record, not a single witness has stated about any collusion between the defendant and Raja, rather no single question in this regard has been put to the Raja during his being cross examined by the plaintiffs, while he was examined through commission.
(c) Last but not the least, the learned counsel raised the point that, the suit has been proved to be within time for the reasons (a) it is evident from the record of the case that, the plaintiffs succeeded to get back the possession of the suit in the year 1972 by any means, but in the same year, the defendant again dispossessed the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs filed the suit before Ulluma Board, the same was having power of Civil Courts, the board failed to decide, the matter till its abolition in the year 1975, hence the cause of action against the defendant arises in the year 1975 as such under Article 142 of Limitation Act, the suit is well with in time.
8. 'The learned counsel again failed to substantiate the above plea in the first instance that, at least one of the P. Ws. Has conceded that, the defendant is continuously in possession of the suit land from the time, when he was given possession of the suit land by dispossessing Aliyo, father of the plaintiffs by the Raja party and he was never dispossessed by anybody from the land again.
9. Secondly, the plaintiffs have failed to place any copy of the plaint, they have submitted before Ulluma Board, at this stage it is pertinent to note here that, the Ulluma Board was empowered as Civil Court by the Government and when the boards were abolished then all the record and pending matters were remitted to the Civil Courts established in Gilgit, hence the suit is helplessly time barred.
10. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioners have failed to bring the revision petition with the scope of section 115, C.P.C. As such the impugned judgments/decrees passed by lower Courts are need not to be interfered, hence the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.
11. File be consigned to record.