' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Facts of the case, in brief, are that Muhammad Ashraf, predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners, filed the Suit for possession through pre-emption against the respondents, qua the land measuring 16* Kanals, 19 Marlas (elaborately mentioned in the plaint), inter alia, pleading that the disputed land was owned by Muhammad Khalid, Abida, Zubaida and Farida, son and daughters of Muhammad Shafi, who transferred it to the defendant by way of sale in consideration of Rs,75,000 but in order to avoid any suit for pre-emption, the transaction was shown as exchange, vide mutation. No,.1371 dated 26-9-1996 and the property given in exchange by the defendant was purchased, on the same day, in the name of his son in consideration of Rs,5000 vide mutation No, 1372 dated 26-9-1996. The plaintiff claimed superior right of .Pre-emption on the basis of Shafi Sharik, Shafi Khalit and Shafi Jar and that he fulfilled the requirements of "Talb- e- Muwathibat" and "Talb-e-Ishhad". Muhammad Ashraf, the original plaintiff, died during the proceedings in the suit and his legal heirs (Muhammad Anwar and Razia Begum) were impleaded in the suit. During the pendency of the revision petition, Muhammad Anwar also died, his legal heirs were impleaded and are represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The suit was contested by the defendant thereby controverting the contents of the plaint and asserting that he did not purchase the suit property and the transaction was in fact an exchange and not sale. He also denied that he has received any notices of Talbs. The learned trial Court framed the necessary issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion that the , disputed transaction was an exchange and not a sale, however, held that the plaintiff fulfilled the requirements of "Talb-e-Muwathibat" and "Talab-e-Ishhad" and in the ultimate analysis, dismissed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 10-9-2001. Muhammad Anwar (the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) and Mst. Razia Begum assailed the said decree through the appeal before the first appellate Court, while the respondent submitted the cross-objections.
The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal as well the cross-objections through the impugned judgment dated 26-6-2002, hence the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the alleged exchanged was sanctioned in favour of defendant on 26-9-1996 and on the same day, the exchanged land was purchased by the son of the petitioner, which is sufficient to show that the transaction was a sale and not exchange. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that, the concurrent findings of facts are not to be interfered by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
4.
4. I have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. Solitary contention raised by the learned counsel has duly been dealt with and decided by the first appellate Court in Para 11 of the impugned judgment, which findings are apt to the facts and circumstances of the case. I am not persuaded to take a contrary view specially when it has been proved from the evidence on record, as discussed by both -the Courts below, that the transaction was in fact exchange and not sale. It may be noted that even the witnesses produced by the plaintiff do not support his plea that the transaction was a sale and not exchange. I find from the perusal of the judgments that both.
The courts, after adverting to the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, concurrently held that the questioned transaction was an exchange and not sale. Although this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. When the findings of both the Courts are concurrent, is not called upon to reappraise the evidence on record, yet in the interest of justice, I have examined the impugned judgment. In juxta position with the evidence on record and find that the conclusions and findings arrived at by both the Courts below are not only in accordance with the record of the case but they are also in consonance with the law on the subject. The learned counsel has not pointed out any mis reading and non-reading of the evidence on record.
5. It is settled law the findings on questions of fact or law recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction unless those findings suffer from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularities. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Rafique v.
Aamer Shahzad and others (1999 YLR 610).
6. The concurrent findings of facts were recorded by both the Courts below which are based on proper appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, produced by the respective parties before the learned trial Court. No case of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence has been made out, neither any legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel even during the arguments, nor illegal exercise of jurisdiction nor failure of exercise of jurisdiction by both the Courts below has been attributed.
7. It is settled law that concurrent findings of facts, based on evidence, are not liable to be interfered in the exercise of jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Reliance is placed on Abdul Rahim and another v. Mst. Janatay Bibi and others (2000 SCM R 346), Anwar Zaman and 5 others v.
Bahadur Sher and others (2000 SCM R 431), Aziz Ullah Khan and others v. Gul Muhammad Khan (2000 SCM R 1647), Altaf Hussain v. Abdul Hameed and Abdul Majeed through legal heirs and another (2000 SCM R 314), Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani and 2 others (2000 SCM R 329), Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994 SC 291) and Muhammad Rashid Ahmad v.
Muhammad Siddique (PLD 2002 SC 293).
8: Upshot of the above discussion is that the present revision petition is devoid of merits, thus, the same stands dismissed in limine.