GULZAR AHMED, J.---Granted.
2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
3. Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged Order dated 12-9-2011, passed by the learned Vth ADJ, Karachi, East in a Civil Revision No,54 of 2011, preferred by the petitioner, wherein Order dated 28-3-2011, passed by learned VIIth, Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East in Execution No,89 of 2010 arising out of Suit No,893 of 2003.Had been challenged.
' In a nutshell, it was the case of the petitioner that Suit No,598 of 2000 for declaration, specific performance of contract, recovery of amount and injunction was filed before this court against the present respondent(s) which was subsequently after the change of pecuniary jurisdiction transferred to the lower court and was given Suit No,671 of 2003 which, after trial was dismissed by the VIIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East. The respondent(s) too preferred Suit No,965 of 2000 for possession of house No,5-B, Phase-I, Defence View, Karachi against the Petitioner before this court, which too, upon change of pecuniary jurisdiction was transferred to the lower court and was given Suit No,893 of 2003, and after trial was decreed by VIIth Serial Civil Judge, Karachi East. Against the above judgments and decrees in the two suits, the petitioner preferred two Civil Appeals Nos.312 and 313 of .2010 which were dismissed by a common Order dated 26-1-2011 by the Vth ADJ, Karachi East. It seems that after dismissal of above two appeals, the respondent(s) activated execution Application No,89 of 2010 in Suit No,893 of 2003. Wherein objections had been preferred by the petitioner which did not bear fruit inasmuch as the execution application was allowed where after above revision was filed.
' In the backdrop of the above fact and circumstances, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts below (trial and appellate and also the executing court) did not appreciate the evidence in detail and/or misread it, therefore needs, to be corrected. Next was raised the point of jurisdiction inasmuch as it was implored that the court in district East did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suits and/or appeals; district south had the jurisdiction.
' We have heard the learned counsel in detail and also perused the record. As to the first argument that the courts below failed to appreciate the evidence and such require consideration, to say the least is without substance in that upon perusal of the evidence it transpired that such was appropriately looked into and that on such evidence findings had been given by such courts.
Under the circumstances concurrent findings against the petitioner would not be dislodged by this court routinely, unless the petitioner was able to show that the same were perverse or patently incorrect. The petitioner failed to point out any discrepancy. Therefore this court is reluctant to interference into the same and thrash it out when the petitioner fell short of it. It would be pertinent to note that the two appeals which were filed by the petitioner having been dismissed by the learned Vth ADJ, Karachi East were not pursued further and the same have attained finality and/or the decree that was passed became final, which was indirectly attempted to be hampered by the petitioner by preferring uncalled for litigation.
' Adverting to the question of jurisdiction, we are afraid to note that again it, was an attempt in futility inasmuch as that the petitioner contested the matter throughout before the courts at Karachi East (not at Karachi South) and even the appeals had been preferred by the petitioner before the appellate court, at Karachi East, so also the objections at Karachi East. Bare perusal of the record shall manifest that no such ground had been raised in earlier point of time. Under the circumstances, such ground at this belated stage is' not sustainable.
Coming specifically to the Impugned Order dated 12-9-2011, it may be observed that the learned Vth ADJ, Karachi East in particular held that the petitioner miserably failed to bring any material to satisfy the court that the orders passed by the trial court suffered from any legal infirmity and that during the course of the arguments it was admitted by the petitioner that the judgment and decrees passed in suits had been challenged in appeals and 'after dismissal of the appeals, such was not challenged further and that the judgments and decrees passed in suits attain finality. It was further mentioned by the learned Vth ADJ, Karachi East that since no ground was available for 'revision, the same was dismissed being' meritless. On the face of it, the petitioner had no grounds for revision inasmuch as that it was not alleged that the courts below have had exercised jurisdiction not vested in them by law or that such have had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or that such courts have had acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or without material irregularity. For what has been discussed herein and available in the Impugned Order dated 12-9- 2011, we would not like to interfere into the same. As a result, the petition being meritless is hereby dismissed in limini.
4. Disposed of in view of the above.