JUDGMENT MIAN SHAHID IQBAL, J.---This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment and decree ' dated 16-4-2003 whereby appeal filed by present petitioners was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the instant suit was filed by respondent on 10- 4-1997, written statement was filed on 29-7-1997 and seven issues were framed. Present respondents adduced two witnesses along with plaintiff who appeared as P.W.1. On the reverse, present petitioners who were defendant No.3 in the suit appeared and made statement. The learned Trial Court after recording of the evidence decreed the suit on 28-5-2001 of the present respondents to the extent of 1/2 share thereby accepting the superior right of preemption of both the parties on equal footing, against the said judgment and decree, appeal was filed which was dismissed on 16-4-2003 hence the present judgment and decree dated 16-4-2003 has been called into question through this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submits that since the superior right of pre- emption was admitted by both the Courts to be on, equal footing of the party. Further submits that Talb-eMuwathibat had not proved, as such, both the lower Courts could not decree the suit even to the share equal to 1/2 of the property and subsequently appeal should have been accepted regarding the half share in respect of which decree was passed by the learned Trial Court. Learned, counsel submits that as P.W.2, though, had submitted in examination-in-chief that he informed the plaintiff on 1-7-1997 at about 10-00 a.m. In the morning at his residence regarding the sale of the property and in cross-examination he explained that he came to know from Yaqub, who was not produced before the learned Trial. Court hence condition precedent for the purpose of proving Talb-e-Muwathibat from basic source has since not brought on record, therefore, the same is not proved. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court did not advert to this part of the evidence that petitioners/defendants had, proved the said Talb. The learned Trial Court has brushed aside his evidence on the ground that no documentary evidence was produced regarding the development made on the said land. Learned counsel further submits that total claim has been ignored by the learned Trial Court and the learned lower Appellate Court.
4. On the reverse, learned counsel for the respondent submits that till date, there is no law on the point that informer's informer should also be brought on record in order to prove the chain of information from whom the news of sale of the property is reported for. In support of his contention, learned counsel referred to PLD 2007 SC 302. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that petitioner's counsel has failed to demonstrate before this Court misreading or non-reading of evidence from the record of present civil revision. Further submits that since this ground has not been taken in the civil revision, as such, the same cannot be pressed into by the learned counsel.
Learned counsel further submits that lower Appellate Court was right in turning down the ground for claim of improvement of land, as only sole defendant No.3 appeared and there was no other evidence to justify the same, moreover the said defendant himself while appearing before the learned Trial Court did not utter even a single word regarding such improvement, as such, the Lower Appellate Court was justified in turning down the said plea. Lastly, learned counsel submits that in view of the law laid down PLJ 2006 SC 2030 (sic) that even if the conclusion drawn by the Courts below is erroneous on the face of record, the same cannot be interfered with. In the civil revision. Learned counsel further submits that in view of law laid down 2001 SCM R 798, if the Revisional Court after scanning the whole evidence arrives at different conclusions, the same cannot be substituted in place of concurrent findings of the Courts below. Reference is made to 1996 SCM R 813. Learned counsel further submits that perusal of evidence cannot be made in a Civil Revision, as such the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted in view of law laid down PLD 1994 SC 291. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the Court cannot embark on, to reinvestigate the matter until and unless there is some legal errors on the face of the record. Learned counsel lastly submits that the ground taken in the revision petition are insufficient for rehabilitation of the case, as such, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the laws cited above.
5. I have attended to the arguments of the parties and have gone through the record. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that since the person who informed the respondent had also a source from where he came to know regarding the sale of property, as per evidence was one Mehboob who has not been produced, as such, Talb e- Muwathibat in the given circumstances is not proved hence both the Courts below have fallen in error in deciding the matter against the present petitioners. This contention of the learned counsel cannot be taken into consideration for the reason that as per settled law it is only the informer who should be produced in court so as to stand the test of veracity of his statement. In the present case, the said evidence has been brought on record, as such, in these given circumstances, the ground agitated by the learned counsel does not hold the field. The other submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the appreciation of evidence and its reexamination cannot also be taken into consideration. In view of law laid down PLD 2006 SC 230, relevant portion is reproduced as under:- "Re-examination and reappraisal of evidence was not permissible in revisional jurisdiction even if conclusion drawn by subordinate Courts' on question of fact was erroneous".
The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners amounts to re-examination of evidence. In view of the above law re-examination cannot be gone into, as such, this contention of the learned counsel would not be tenable.
6. Moreover, in case the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are accepted, it would amount to reaching a different conclusion from the already decision made by both the learned' Lower Courts which even the law does not allow. Reference is made PLD 1994 SC 291.
"Fact that High Court while re-appraising evidence on record reached a conclusion different from that arrived at by two Courts below, such fact could never be a ground justifying interference with a finding of fact much less a concurrent finding of fact recorded by Courts below on basis of evidence produced before them".
Learned counsel for respondent had even referred to two other judgments i.e. 1996 SCM R 813 and 2001 SCM R 798, thereby submitting that High Court on its on appraisal of the evidence cannot set aside the conclusion reached by two Courts below. Reference is made' "No interference was called for in conclusions drawn by Courts below. High Court erred ill setting aside concurrent findings of Courts below on question of fact by reappraisal of evidence and thus, overstepped limits of its jurisdiction."
The upshot of the matter is that in the given circumstances and as per settled law, the concurrent findings of the facts, neither can be gone into nor re appraised, nor can the High Court re- substitute its judgment in place of concurrent findings already given by the courts below except in presence of some legal defect or error which has not been pointed out.
7. In view of above discussion, this revision petition fails, hence the same is dismissed.