1. ' GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J.---This Civil Revision Petition under section 115, C.P.0 is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 31-05-2001 passed by learned Civil Judge-V, Quetta and Judgment and Decree dated 30-4-2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Quetta, whereby suit as well as appeal filed by petitioner were dismissed.
2. ' The precise facts of the case are that the respondents filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of agreement dated 31-7-1982 attested on 1-8-1982 and possession of house bearing No,8-27/34, situated in Baluchi Street, Quetta against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely late Rahim Bakhsh Barfi in the Court of Civil Judge, Quetta. In the suit following reliefs were claimed.
3. "(a) Declaring that since the defendant No,1 have violated the terms of the agreement dated 31-7- 1982 attested on 1-8-1982 on the basis which he had been allowed to reside in the disputed house, therefore same is liable to be cancelled and possession is liable to be restored to the plaintiffs.
(b) That a decree for possession of house bearing No,8-20/34 situated in Balochi Street, Quetta entering into Khasra No,6368 be passed directing the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the same to the plaintiffs.
(c) Any other relief which this honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiffs.
(d) Cost of the suit may also be allowed."
4. ' The petitioners /defendants contested the suit and repudiated the claim of the respondents by means of their joint written statement dated 4-9-1997.
5. 'Out of the pleadings of the parties the learned Civil Judge-V, Quetta framed the following issues:-- "(1) Whether suit of plaintiff is hopelessly time barred?
(2) Whether proper court fee has not been affixed on the plaint?
(3) Whether suit is liable to be dismissed in view of legal objection 'A' and 'C'?
(4) Whether agreement dated 31-7-1982 is creation of fraud?
(5) Whether suit is not competent in view of legal objection 'E'?
(6) Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession of disputed house bearing No,8-20/34 situated in Balochi Street, Quetta bearing Khasra Nos.63-68?
(7) Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief claimed?
(8) Relief?
6. ' The respondents/plaintiffs in support of their claim produced five witnesses namely Haji Fazal Mohammad (P.W.1), Amir Bakhsh (P.W.2), Javaid Hussain (P.W.3), Mushtaq Ahmad (P.W.4), Mehmood Ahmad (P.W.5) and thereafter respondent No,1 got recorded his own statement for himself and as attorney for respondent No,2.
7. ' The petitioner/ defendants produced seven witnesses namely Mohammad Yaseen (D.W.1), Aftab Alam (D.W.2), Mohammad Mehdi (D.W.3), Shoukat Hussain (D.W.4), Faiz Mohammad (D.W.5), Mirza Mohammad Akbar (D.W.6) and Ghulam Mohammad (D.W.7) and thereafter petitioners Nos.1 and 2 got recorded their own statements.
8. ' The learned Civil Judge-V, Quetta decreed the suit vide judgment dated 31-5-2001. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the District Judge, Quetta. The same was transferred on the file of Additional District Judge-II, Quetta. The learned appellate Court vide judgment and decree impugned herein dismissed the appeal of petitioners. The petitioners/defendants have assailed both the impugned judgments by filing the instant Civil Revision Petition.
9. ' Miss Sarwat Hina, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the suit filed by respondents was barred by time, but the Courts below have failed to apply its judicial mind. She further argued that the document dated 31-7-1982 was fraudulently prepared by the respondents and the same has not been proved according to law, but the Courts below have failed to decide issue No,4 and apparently the agreement dated 31-7-1982 was creation of fraud.
10. ' On the other hand Mr. Manzar Siddique, Advocate learned counsel for the respondents, argued that Courts below have rightly analyzed the evidence on record and their concurrent findings need no interference. He further argued that on 21-7-2003 the petitioner No,1 filed an application and prayed that she does not press the instant petition.
11. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the available record. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and do not find any merit therein. On the file of the lower Court, there is documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff/respondents Exh.P/ 1, which is an agreement which shows that late Rahim Bakhsh Barfi was enjoying the possession of house in dispute as licensee, and Exh;P/2, the registered Sale deed dated 19-7-1939, which shows that the property in dispute was purchased by the grandfather of the respondents namely Dur Mohammad from Jamadar Ghulam Rasool in the year 1939 and after constructing three rooms and boundary wall, two rooms were given to late Rahim Bakhsh Barfi for residence.
12. ' As to the objection to limitation, the same is also baseless. The need for seeking declaration arose because of the act of late Rahim Bakhsh Barfi, who after withdrawal of the suit, when the petition filed before this Court was withdrawn on 9-9-1993 and thereafter with the collusion of revenue staff reversed the revenue entries in his favour by the late Rahim Bakhsh. Thus the suit having been filed on 13-6-1997 cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be barred by time.
13. ' It is settled principle of law that the findings on question of fact and law recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction can not be interfered in revisional jurisdiction unless those findings suffer from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularities.
14. ' After hearing both the parties and perusal of record the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, I am not inclined to interfere in the present controversy in exercise of revisional powers under section 115 of the C.P.C., which otherwise are very limited. Accordingly this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.