MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--- The petitioner/plaintiff, through the filing of the present revision petition has called in question judgment and decree dated 6.3.2003, whereby the learned Addl. District Judge dismissed petitioner's appeal and maintained the, judgment and decree dated 30.7.2002, passed by the learned Civil Judge, through which he dismissed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, filed by the petitioner.
2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the decision of \the present petition are that respondent No. 2 terminated Lime Stone lease, granted to the petitioner company, and ordered for the forfeiture of insurance guarantee furnished by the petitioners vide, order dated 12.3.1998 which was challenged by the petitioner before respondent No. 3, but its appeal was dismissed, vide order dated 1.11.2000.
The petitioner field a suit for declaration, against the respondent, with the prayer that the afore- noted order dated 12.7.1998 and 1.11.2000 be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and also claiming a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from encashing the guarantees. The respondents contended the suit by way of filing the written statement, thereby defending the afore-noted orders and inter a/ia pleading that as per the terms and conditions of lease, the petitioner was bound to install cement factory within a period of three years, failing which, the lease was liable to be withdrawn and the bank/insurance guarantees were to be forfeited.
Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the necessary issues, recorded the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties and, ultimately, dismissed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 30.7.2002. The petitioner, obviously, felt aggrieved and assailed the said decree before the appellate forum, but without any success, as its appeal. Was also dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 6.3.2003, hence, the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that DW-1 has clearly admitted that the Government did not suffer any loss; that the impugned judgments from mis-reading and non- reading of evidence and that both the Courts, while rendering the impugned judgments, have committed legal errors, therefore, the same are not sustainable in law.
4. In view of the arguments of the learned counsel, I have examined both the judgments and find that both the Courts below, specially the learned Trial Court, have comprehensively embarked upon the issues involved in the case, dealt with each and every aspect of the case, adverted to the evidence on record and reached to the proper conclusions, which, to my mind are not open to exception. The learned Trial Court, while referring to the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, and after discussing the clauses of allotment order, has reached to the authoritative conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to the sought for decree.
5. I have perused the evidence on record in juxta position with the findings given by both the Courts below and of the view that the inferences drawn by both the Courts are in accordance with the evidence on record. The findings recorded by both the Courts are not only in accordance with the record of the case but the same are also in consonance with the law on the subject.
6. Although the learned counsel, has contended that the impugned judgment suffers from mis- reading and non-reading of evidence, yet when asked to explain as to which portion of evidence has either been mis-read or non-read, the learned counsel, despite his best efforts could not point out any pieces of evidence, which, have either been mis-read or non-read by either of the Courts.
7. It is settled law that 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 vs. Aamer Shahzad and others (PLJ 2000 Lahore 157).
8. 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, no illegal exercise of jurisdiction nor failure of exercise of jurisdiction by both the Courts below has been attributed.
9. 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 Rehim and another vs. Mst. Janatay Bibi and others (2000 SCM R 346), Anwar Zaman and 5 others vs. Bahadur Sher and others (2000 SCM R 431), Aziz Ullah Khan and others vs. Gul Muhammad Khan (2000 SCM R 1647), Altaf Hussain vs. Abdul Hameed and Abdul Majeed through legal heirs and another, (2000 SCM R 314), Haji Noor Muhammad vs. Abdul Ghani and 2 others (2000 SCM R 329), Haji Muhammad Din vs. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994 SC 291) and Muhammad Rashid Ahmad vs. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 20C2 SC 293).
10. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present revision petition is devoid of any merits, thus, the same is dismissed in limine. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.