RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.--- The petitioners revision petition have called in question the judgment and decree dated 3-5-1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari, whereby, he dismissed their appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 16-12-1002 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vehari, whereby he had decreed the suit for declaration filed by the respondents.
2. Succinctly the facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the respondents/plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration on 18-3-1985 to the effect that mortgage deed No.1762, dated 6-11-1982, regarding Shop No.103, Block "G", Burewala, amounting to Rs.4,00,000 as collateral security was liable to stamp duty Rs.4,000 only as registration fee and that the same has already been paid; that the demand of Rs.11,000 as additional stamp duty and the second demand of another amount of Rs.11,000 as registration fee through notice dated 1-3-1985 was illegal, void, without notice against facts and was liable to be set aside. It was further prayed that the appellants/defendants may be restrained from demanding said amount of Rs.22,000 on the mortgage deed. The suit was contested by the appellants/defendants by filing written their respective written statements controverting the assertions of the plaint and the trial Court out of the divergent pleadings of the parties proceeded to frame six issues including that of the relief; both the sides led evidence in support of their respective claims and the trial Court after considering the same decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 16-12-1992; being aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, the petitioners/defendants preferred appeal before the learned District Judge, Vehari, which was entrusted to a learned Additional District Judge, who vide judgment and decree dated dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 3-5-1995. Hence, the instant revision petition.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence available on the record, whereby a grave miscarriage of justice has been caused to the petitioners; that the findings on the issues given by both the Courts below are not sustainable at law; that the Courts below have misinterpreted the documents Exh. P.1 and Mark "A", wherein it is clearly written that advance limit was Rs.15,00,000, therefore, the Auditor had rightly objected that the respondents/plaintiffs should have paid additional amount of Rs.22,000 as stamp duty and registration fee. Lastly, it has been argued that the respondents/plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief sought for as they had neither raised any objection through an application before the Treasury Officer nor had they filed any appeal before the Registrar or Collector, therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs vehemently argued that they have proved their claim by producing cogent evidence and the Courts below have arrived at concurrent findings, which cannot be disturbed by this Court, unless any misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed, out.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and.have also gone through the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below.
6. It has been observed that in order to prove their claim, one of the respondents/plaintiffs, namely, Muhammad Ayub had appeared as P.W.1 and had in a nutshell narrated the story of the plaint. In rebuttal, the petitioners/defendants got examined Bashir Ahmad, Registeri Clerk, Burewala as D.W.1, who deposed that on 6-11-1982, the mortgage of Rs.4,00,000 was registered by the Sub-Registrar, Burewala, but, the advance' limit of loan in this mortgage was Rs.15,00,000 and therefore, the auditor objected that the plaintiff should have paid additional amount of Rs.22,000 as fee, whereupon notice was issued to the respondents/ plaintiffs. He had admitted that in the registered mortgage deed it was mentioned that the advance limit was Rs.15,00,000 and that the shop was mortgaged for Rs.4,00,000. After considering evidence led by both the sides, the learned trial Judge had proceeded to observe that it is clear that the real mortgage was for Rs.4,00,000 and stamp duty and registration fee of Rs.8,000 had been correctly paid by the respondents/ plaintiffs and in this way the demand of the petitioner/defendants was declared illegal. The learned Additional District Judge while dealing with the appeal filed by the petitioners/defendants has also considered each and every aspect of the matter and has rightly come to the conclusion that the demand of the petitioners/defendants was illegal and void.
7. Perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees reveals that the conclusions arrived at by both the Courts below are elaborate and are based on cogent reasons. No misreading or non-reading of evidence or any other legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners with the judgments rendered by the Courts below warranting interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. As per the dictum of law laid down by honourable apex Court in cases of Aurangzeb through legal heirs and others v. Muhammad Jaffar and another 2007 SCM R 236, Shafi Muhammad and others v. Khanzada Gul and others 2007 SCM R 368 and Rashid Ahmad v. Said Ahmad 2007 SCM R 926, concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are not open to exception unless it is established that the same suffered from any jurisdictional defect or were based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, which elements are conspicuously lacking in the present civil revision.
8. Resultantly, there being no merit in this revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. No order