Noor. Ali and others, plaintiffs, instituted suit against Mst. Foladai and others, defendants, for a declaration to the effect that plaintiffs were owners in possession of suit property, having inherited the same from their predecessor-in-interest late Mian Khan and entries in the revenue record adverse to the interest of the plaintiffs, were illegal, void, fraudulent and liable to rectification. The plaintiffs also prayed for issuance of permanent injunction restraining the defendants to alienate or transfer the suit property in any manner. The plaintiffs further prayed for possession of suit property in case they were not found in possession of the same.
2. The suit was resisted by Defendant Nos, 1 to 8 on all grounds, legal as well as factual. Relevant issues, arising out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, were formulated and after recording such evidence as the parties wished to adduce in support of their respective contentions, learned Civil Judge/Maga Qazi, District Buner, dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 23.12.2004.
An appeal was preferred there against, which did not succeed. The same was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Buner at Daggar, by judgment dated 27.7.2006. The plaintiff, feeling aggrieved, have filed the present civil revision, which is before me for adjudication.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence on file and both the Courts have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them and thus have arrived at wrong conclusion. The learned counsel reiterated that sufficient material was available on the file to substantiate the petitioner's claim, which has been put at shelf and ignored without any justifiable reason, which has resulted in complete failure of justice. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel contended that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from material irregularities.
The Khasra numbers of property in dispute and the one given in the so-called sale-deeds have not been determined, for-which a local commission should have been appointed.
4. It is established principle of civil law that the plaintiff has to prove his case from his own evidence and cannot benefit from the weaknesses in the defendant's case. Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts, which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. Both the Courts below have given exhaustive judgments after due appraisal of evidence on the file and after discussing all the prons and cons of the case.
There appears to be no legal defect in their judgments, which are in consonance with the evidence on the file. Judgments of the Courts below are neither tainted with any illegality or irregularity nor are fanciful or arbitrary, thus for the reasons discussed above, no interference is called for by this Court.
5. It is well settled principle of law that in case the trial Court has exercised jurisdiction which is upheld by the First Appellate Court, this Court seldom interferes unless and until the discretion is exercised arbitrarily. It is also settled principle of law that this Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in concurrent findings of Courts below while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC unless and until judgments of the Courts below are result of misreading or non-reading of evidence or decision of the case is in violation, of parameters, prescribed by the superior Courts.
The Courts below have property appreciated the evidence available on record and I have not been able to find out any misreading/non-reading of evidence or any material, irregularity or any jurisdictional error or defect warranting interferences in the concurrent findings of the Court of competent jurisdiction. Abdur Rahim and another Vs. Mst. Jantay Bibi and others (2000 SCM R 346), Haji Noor 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 2002 SC 293). For what has been stated above, no error of law having been pointed, I find no merit in this revision petition or justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, which do not suffer from /" any inherent infirmity or legal and jurisdictional error. The civil revision is without substance.
The same is dismissed in limine.