' AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, J.--- This Revision Application has been directed against judgment dated 28-7- 2010 and decree dated 9-8-2010 passed by learned VIIth-Additional District Judge, Hyderabad in Civil Appeal No,203 of 2009 [Asif son of Shahzad v. Mst. Sangeeta widow of Noor Akbar and 3 others] whereby the appeal filed by the applicant herein against the judgment dated 13-8-2009 and decree dated 17-8-2009 passed by the learned 1st: Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad in F.C. Suit No,102 of 2006 filed by the plaintiff/applicant for declaration, cancellation of sale-deed and permanent injunction was dismissed. The applicant through the present civil revision has prayed that the aforesaid impugned judgments and decrees so passed be set aside.
2. Precisely the facts leading to the filing of the above civil revision application are as below:---
3. The applicant is owner of property i,e, Ground floor shop measuring 29-08 sq. Yards, situated on C.S. No,C/2763 and upper storey of residential portion C/2763-A measuring 115-01 sq. Yards situated on C.S. No,2763, 2764, 2765 and 2766, Marachi Muhalla, Hyderabad.
4. The applicant is also owner of upper storey 2761/A measuring H7-05 sq. Yards, Ward-C, situated on C.S. No,2761, 2762, 2767 and 2768 Marachi Muhalla, Hyderabad.
5. The applicant as owner of Shop No,C-2763 Ground floor rented out the aforesaid shop to a tenant viz. Akhtar, whereas the upper storey bearing C.S. No,2763/A measuring 115-01 sq. Yards, per his assertion, was rented out to respondents Nos.2 to 4/Defendants Nos.2 to 4. The applicant/plaintiff with his family is residing in the other portion of upper story bearing C.S.No,2761 measuring 17-05 sq. Yards.
6. The tenant on the ground floor shop, according to applicant/plaintiff committed default in payment of rent. Therefore, the applicant/plaintiff initiated rent proceedings against the tenant.
The respondents Nos.2 to 4/defendants Nos.2 to 4 per assertions had also committed default in payment of rent.
7. Upon getting knowledge by the tenants/respondents Nos.2 to 4, that the applicant/plaintiff is intending to initiate rent proceedings regarding the rented out premises, they approached the applicant/plaintiff and threatened, that if any rent proceedings are initiated by the applicant/plaintiff then he should be ready for facing dire consequences. The applicant/plaintiff in response, nonetheless replied that on the demand if, due rent is not paid then the applicant/plaintiff would be constrained to file appropriate proceedings for recovery of the rent.
Upon hearing this, the respondents Nos.2 to 4/defendants Nos.2 to 4, per applicant's assertion, became antagonized.
8. On 19-12-2005, per averments of the applicant/plaintiff, the respondents Nos.2 to 4 with a criminal intention along with two other unknown persons duly armed came to the house of the applicant and thereafter detained the family of the applicant/plaintiff on gun point. Consequently, the applicant was forced to go along with them. Otherwise, per assertion of the applicant/plaintiff, the whole family members of the applicant would have been killed.
9. The respondents Nos.2 to 4/defendants Nos.2 to 4 thereafter took the applicant/plaintiff down the stair and got him seated in a Suzuki Pickup. The other two persons duly armed with guns stayed at the house of the applicant/plaintiff. Per assertion of the applicant/plaintiff, the family members were warned not to speak any word, otherwise, they threatened the murder of whole family.
10. On getting the applicant/plaintiff into Suzuki Pickup, per assertions of the applicant/plaintiff, the Suzuki after some time was stopped at the shop of a photographer and photographs of the applicant was taken thereafter. The applicant, per his assertions was later on taken near to the office of Sub-Registrar, Registration, Hyderabad.
11. Per applicant/plaintiff assertions, the respondents Nos.2 to 4/defendants Nos.2 to 4 during such time were continuously issuing threats of killing to the applicant and his family members. It is further averred by the applicant/plaintiff that on the way, the respondents Nos.2 to 4 were in touch on mobile with their companions having been left at the house of the applicant/plaintiff under whom control the family members were kept confined.
12. On reaching, the office of the Sub-Registrar, Registration Hyderabad, one of the respondents Nos.2 to 4, as stated went to the office of Sub-Registrar and some time later brought a person from the office of Sub Registrar who thereafter as alleged obtained signature(s) of the applicant on a stamp paper and other papers.
13. On signing and executing the documents including the document prepared on stamp papers, the applicant thereafter as alleged was taken to his house. On leaving the house, the respondents Nos.2 to 4 and two other unknown companions again threatened the applicant. Per assertions, in case of any hue and cry, he and his family members were threatened of facing the sever consequences.
14. After leaving the house by respondents Nos.2 to 4 and their companion(s), the applicant as stated, sent telegrams to various authorities regarding non-taking of any action by the police against the respondents Nos.2 to 4 and two other unknown culprits/companions.
15. Despite efforts, to halt the criminal proceedings the same in any event were initiated by the applicant/plaintiff against the respondents Nos.2 to 4 and others.
16. During police inquiry, the applicant/plaintiff as stated came to know that the respondents Nos.2 to 4 had in fact obtained sale-deed regarding property of the applicant's 1st. Floor C.S. No,2763/A measuring 115-01 sq. Yards, which per assertions of the applicant/ plaintiff, was on rent with the respondents Nos.2 to 4. The sale-deed so executed was in favour of respondent No,1 /defendant No, 1.
17. The sale-deed dated 19-12-2005 per assertions of the applicant/plaintiff, is without sale consideration rather to say has been obtained with a show of force and fraud committed by the respondents Nos.2 to 4 and 2 others.
18. On getting the knowledge about the registered sale-deed dated 19-12-2005 in favour of respondent No,1/defendant No,1, the applicant/plaintiff, filed F.C.- Suit No, 120 of 2006 [Asif son of Shahzad v. Mst. Sangeeta widow of Noor Akbar and 3 others] for declaration, cancellation of sale- deed Registration No,4763 book-J dated 19-12-2005 and permanent injunction with the following prayers:---
(a) That it may be declared that action of defendant for obtaining illegally forcibly at gun point sale-deed for property bearing city Survey No, C/2 763/A measuring 115-01 sq. Yards Ward 'C' upper storey Mareahi Muhalla, Hyderabad of plaintiff from him is illegal colour ful, bogus and void and not binding on plaintiff and is liable to be cancelled and possession restored to plaintiff:
(h) That defendants be restrained from making any additions or alterations or creating any sort of charges over property in question of plaintiff in any manner whatsoever.
(c) That costs of the suit may be awarded to plaintiff against the defendants.
(d) Any other relief as honourable Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to plaintiff.
19. Upon service, the respondents/defendants jointly filed their written statement on or about 6-10- 2006 and seriously denied the allegations levelled by the applicant/plaintiff. The respondents/ defendants averred that the applicant/plaintiff in actual fact has sold out the property bearing C.S.No,C/2763-A, measuring 115-01 sq. Yards situated at Marachi Muhalla, Hyderabad to respondent No,1/defendant No,1 on 19-2-2005. It was further asserted that respondents/defendants never remained tenants of the applicant/plaintiff. Per respondents/ defendants' version the applicant/plaintiff has cooked up a false story only with a view to create a cause of action for filing of the suit. Otherwise, the respondent No,1/defendant No,1 is a bona fide purchaser of the suit property. The applicant/plaintiff after receiving the total sale consideration in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/-[Rs,two lacs only], executed registered sale-deed dated 19-12-2005 in respect of the subject property bearing C.S.No,C/2763/A, measuring 115-01 sq. Yards having stair case from ground floor C.S.No,C/2763-, consisting of first floor with open roof Ward 'c' situated at Marachi Muhalla, Muhalla Tower Market, Road, Hyderabad in favour of Mst. Sangeeta wd/o Noor Akbar before Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad.
20. It was further stated by the respondents/defendants that prior to execution of sale-deed dated 19-12-2005, the applicant/plaintiff himself obtained copy of 'City Survey Extract' for the purpose of execution of a registered sale-deed. Upon providing copy of the 'City Survey Extract' to the respondents/defendants thereafter sale-deed in favour of respondent No,1/defendant No,1 was prepared. The allegations levelled by the applicant/plaintiff against the respondents as well as police official were denied in written statement, as being false and without any foundation.
21. The allegations levelled and story cooked up by the applicant/ plaintiff after a considerable time of two months, per assertion of the Respondents/Defendants, besides bogus are afterthought. The Registered sale-deed dated 19-12-2005 has been voluntarily signed and executed by the applicant/plaintiff before the Sub -Registrar, Hyderabad. There was no coercion or any threat as alleged by the applicant/ plaintiff. The sale-deed per assertions of respondents/defendants was executed before the Sub-Registrar in presence of witnesses. Lastly it was prayed on behalf of the respondents/defendants that the suit filed by the applicant/plaintiff as being false and fabricated is liable to be dismissed with cost.
22. Ultimately out of the pleadings, the following issues were settled:--- 1.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable under the law?
2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi or legal character to file instant suit against the defendants?
3. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter?
4. Whether no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing the instant suit?
5. Whether the defendants Nos.2 to 4 were tenant of the plaintiff and were residing in the suit property as his tenant?
6. Whether defendants Nos.2 to 4 on gun point got sale-deed executed from plaintiff in favour of the defendant No,1 without any sale consideration in respect of suit house?
7.Whether the plaintiff voluntarily and personally delivered possession of the suit house to the defendant No,1 and in what manner?
8. Whether plaintiff has executed sale-deed in favour of defendant No,1 with free consent after obtaining sale consideration from defendant No,] in respect of suit house?
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
10. What should the decree be?
23. In pro and contra of the issues, parties led their evidence. The applicant/plaintiff examined his wife viz. Mst. Rubina as P.W-1 at Exh.29. In her evidence she has admitted that F.I.R. Was lodged after a delay of two months. Thereafter the applicant/plaintiff examined himself as P.W-2 at Exh.30 and produced a Photostat copy of telegram as Exh.31, certified copy of sale-deed dated 19-12-2005 as Exh.32. After cross-examination of the witnesses by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, plaintiff's side of evidence was closed per Exh.33.
24. The respondents/defendants thereafter examined respondent No,2/defendant No,2 viz: Hyder Ali at Exh.43, who produced original power of attorney as Exh.44, original sale-deed dated 19-12- 2005 as Exh.45, certified true copy of City Survey Extract as Exh.46, certified true copy of City Survey Extract of previous owner dated 6-10-2004 as Exh.47, Photostat copy of complaint against the applicant/plaintiff as Exh .48 .
25. Besides, the respondents/defendants also examined Muhammad Yaseen at Exh.49, witness Naseeruddin at Exh.50 and witness Iqbal Memon, Clerk of Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad at Exh.59, who produced attested copy of sale-deed as Exh.60, original authority letter as Exh.61 and thereafter the side of the respondents/defendants was closed on 30-3-2009 per Exh.62.
26. Upon hearing of the arguments by the Court of 1st. Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, F.C. Suit No,120 of 2006 was dismissed vide a detailed judgment dated 13-8-2009 followed by decree dated 17-8- 2009.
27. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the applicant/ plaintiff preferred a Civil Appeal No,203 of 2009 [Asif son of Shahzad v. Mst. Sangeeta widow of Noor Akbar and 3 others) before the Court of VIIth-Additional District Judge, Hyderabad. The learned VllthAdditional District Judge, Hyderabad, after hearing of arguments also dismissed the above appeal vide judgment dated 28- 7-2010 followed by decree dated 9-8-2010.
28. The applicant/plaintiff, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below has preferred the instant revision application for setting aside the aforesaid judgments and decrees.
29. On 26-11-2011 when the above Civil Revision Application came up for katcha peshi and hearing of application bearing C.M.A.1033 of 2011 Mr. Shamsuddin Memon, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Abdul Aziz Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondents advanced arguments in support of their respective contention.
30. Mr. Shamsuddin Memon, learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff argued that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court while passing the impugned judgments and decrees have committed illegality and irregularity. Mr. Shamsuddin Memon, learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the trial Court as well as appellate Court in fact has failed to appreciate the situation created by the respondents/defendants regarding execution of registered sale-deed dated 19-12-2005 [Ex45].
31. Mr. Shamasuddin Memon, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that the impugned judgments and decrees passed against the applicant/plaintiff are contrary to the evidence on record. Per learned counsel the judgments and decrees passed against the applicant are bad in law and thus are liable to be set aside. Mr. Memon further contended that the instant Revision application filed by the applicant/plaintiff be allowed and the concurrent findings rendered by the two Courts below be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff placed reliance on 1996 SCMR 137 [Sughran Bibi v. Aziz Begum and 4 others) and 2008 SCMR 146 [Choudhry Ghulam Rasool v. Mrs. Nusrat Rasool], 2008 CLC 175 [Syed Ahmad through special attorney v. Muzafar Hussain through L.Rs,].
32. As against that Mr. Abddul Aziz Shaikh, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 to 4, forcefully argued that the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court as well as appellate Court are in accordance with law and have been passed validly. Both the Courts have neither committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Per learned counsel for the respondents, there is no misreading of any important piece of evidence or otherwise concurrent finding as alleged is perverse of any evidence. Mr. Abdul Aziz Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants further contended that the applicant/plaintiff has not denied the signatures on the registered sale-deed dated 19-12-2005 [Exh.45]. In view of such position, the applicant cannot question the registered document on the basis of sham allegations.
33. Per learned counsel, once a document is registered then presumption of correctness is attached to it. He further contended that the residence of the applicant/plaintiff is situated in a thickly-populated area but he has failed to examine any witness regarding so-called confinement of his or of his family members. So also so-called forceful sitting in the Suzuki and taking him to the shop of photographer Garhi khata no witness has been examined.
35. Mr. Abdul Aziz Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondents further contended that per applicant/plaintiffs' version he was beaten, family members were confined in thickly-populated area, the applicant was forcefully taken to the shop of .Photographer and thereafter to the office of Sub-Registrar Hyderabad, but in this entire period no 'hue and cry' whatsoever was made either by his family members or/and by the applicant/plaintiff himself per learned counsel, even the photographer from whose shop allegedly photographs of the applicant/plaintiff was made has not been examined/produced in support of the alleged contention of the applicant.
36. Finally, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the above Revision Application being without any substance merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed with cost. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the Respondents has placed reliance on the case of WAZEER KHOSO v. PROVINCE OF SINDH, THROUGH SECRETARY. BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS (PLD 2005 Karachi-43) and 2010 CLC 1861 (Mst. NASEEM v. SHAHLA DURANI).
37, I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have also scanned the materials placed on record minutely.
38. The applicant/plaintiff had examined his wife Mst. Rubina as P.W-1 at Exh.29 and himself as P.W.2 at Exh.30. From careful perusal of evidence of both the witnesses it is evident that the applicant/plaintiff has failed to produce any cogent oral and/or documentary evidence in respect of his allegations regarding forceful confinement of his family members and forcibly taken away of the applicant/plaintiff to the shop of photographer and office of Sub-Registrar Hyderabad.
39. So also the applicant/plaintiff has failed to establish that the respondents/defendants were tenants of the applicant/plaintiff. No tenancy agreement or evidence regarding alleged oral tenancy agreement was led by the applicant/plaintiff. No proof regarding payment of rent by the respondents/defendants have been produced in evidence by the applicant/plaintiff. It is evident from record that the so- called incident took place on 19-12-2005 but regarding the said incident suit was filed on 16-8-2006 after delay of long period. Silence for a so long period ex facie creates doubt regarding allegations of coercion and use of force. No independent witness from Muhalla, photographer's shop and/or office of sub-Registrar Hyderabad has been examined by the applicant/plaintiff in support of his allegations.
40. The registered sale-deed dated 19-12-2005 [Exh.45] not only bears the signatures of the applicant/plaintiff but also his CNIC No,41303-7569858-9 and thumb-impression. Photograph affixed on the Registered sale-deed dated 19-12-2005 [Exh.45] also not seems of a person under any pressure. Moreover, the sale-deed [Exh.45] has been executed in presence of two witnesses Muhammad Yaseen and Naseeruddin. Both the aforesaid witnesses in their depositions [Exh.49] and [Exh.50] have affirmed not only the presence of applicant/plaintiff before the Sub-Registrar Hyderabad but also signing and execution of sale-deed [Exh.45] by the applicant/plaintiff before the Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad.
41. Besides, the amount of sale consideration in the sum of R.s.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) and receipt thereof by the applicant has also been affirmed. In evidence led by the respondents/defendants, it has been established that the sale-deed [Exh.345] was not only signed and executed voluntarily but also after receipt of sale consideration. Acknowledgement is evident from the contents of registered sale-deed [Exh.45].
42. Apart from the above two witnesses of the sale-deed [Exh.45], Iqbal Memon from the office of Sub-Registrar Hyderabad, in his deposition [Exh.59] has also affirmed the execution of the sale- deed in favour of respondent No, 1/defendant No,
1. The said witness has produced attested copy of sale-deed as Exh.60. From the evidence no pressure and/or influence has been established by the applicant/plaintiff. From the evidence of the parties it is crystal clear that sale-deed was signed and executed voluntarily without any coercion, force or compulsion. The sale-deed [Exh.45] is also coupled with possession of the respondent No,1 of the subject property. The applicant/plaintiff has also failed to bring on record sufficient materials/evidence to the effect that the registered sale- deed dated 19-12-2005 [Exh.45] has not been executed by the applicant/plaintiff. The sale-deed [Exh.45] being a registered document cast heavy burden upon the applicant/plaintiff to rebut the same with reliable evidence.
43. In the present case, the applicant/plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence, therefore, both the Courts below in my opinion are/were quite justified to give weight to the registered sale-deed [Exh.45], having been signed and executed before the Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad. Under law a registered document always attached to it sanctity and in rebuttal strong evidence indeed is required to cast doubt on the genuineness of a registered document. It is also significant to note that the applicant has neither denied signatures on the registered sale-deed [Exh.45] nor has alleged any coercion etc. By the purchaser/defendant No, 1.
44. Regarding payment of sale consideration, the contents of a registered document are presumed to be correct. In the Registered sale-deed [Exh.45] there are clear recitals about receipt of sale consideration of Rs,2,00,000/- [Rupees two lacs only] by the applicant/plaintiff, therefore, on this score also applicant/plaintiff's case fails.
45. To see the scope of section 115, C.P.C. Vis-a-vis the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the facts involved, it will be appropriate to reproduce herein section 115, C.P.C. Which reads as under:--- "115. Revision---(1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears---
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. ' the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit].
' Provided that, where a person makes an application under this subsection, he shall, in support of such application, furnish copies of the pleadings, documents and order of the subordtnate Court and the High Court shall, except for reasons to be recorded, dispose of such application without calling for the record of the subordinate Court.
' Provided further that such application shall be made within ninety days of the decision of the subordinate Court which shall provide a copy of such decision within three days thereof and the High Court shall dispose of such application within six months.
(2) The District Court may exercise the powers conferred on the High Court by subsection (1) in respect of any case decided by a Court subordinate to such District Court in which no appeal lies and the amount or value of the subject-matter whereof does not exceed the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court.
(3) If any application under subsection (1) in respect of a case within the competence of the District Court has been made either to the High Court or the District Court, no further such application shall be made to either of them.
(4) No proceedings in revision shall be entertained by the High Court against an order made under subsection (2) by the District Court]
46. From the plain reading of section 115, C.P.C. It is crystal clear that the revisional power under section 115, C.P.C. Is primarily intended for correcting the errors having been made and/or committed by the sub- ordinate courts in the exercise of its jurisdiction. While exercising jurisdiction under the aforesaid provision i,e, section 115, C.P.C. Court cannot interfere merely just to substitute its findings on the question of facts. Under Revisional jurisdiction it is worth to note, courts normally do not re-evaluate evidence much less in absence of excess of authority, irregularity or mis- appreciation of evidence. No matter the decision howsoever erroneous, wrong or perverse the question of fact or law unless the decision falls within the scope of section 115, C.P.C. The revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked. Keeping in view the guiding principles regarding exercise of revisional jurisdiction I am of the view the Courts below have rightly adjudicated upon the matter.
The judgments and decrees thus passed by the Courts below are neither arbitrary, capricious or otherwise warrant interference by this Court under the revisional jurisdiction.
47. The case-laws cited by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to and deal with the cases of 'specific performance' and not registered documents' thus significantly distinguishable.
48. Contrary to the above, the case-laws cited by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants are to the point and fully support the case of respondents/defendants. In the case reported in PLD 2005 Karachi-43 relevant page-46 [WAZIR KHOSO v. PROVINCE OF SINDH], it has been observed as under:--- "----the. Document which is registered one cannot be cancelled because it confers security on human dealings if the registered sale-deed is made and then it is alleged that the same document has been prepared fraudulently and registered document had sanctity attached to it and strong evidence is required to doubt its genuineness. The applicant/plaintiff has not brought sufficient evidence on record that the registered sale-deed was forged or prepared by fictitious person. The respondents/defendants No, 6 to 8 have produced original registered sale-deed and they have examined witness Ali Dost who had witnessed the registered sale-deed. The trial Court had rightly concluded that the sale-deed was executed and the applicant/plaintiff had sold out the suit land to his wife. .The applicant/plaintiff has failed to prove that fictitious person had appeared before the Sub-Registrar for executing the sale-deed. He has failed to examine the attesting witness of the registered sale-deed in support of his version nor he has examined the scriber of the document. In the trial Court, applicant/plaintiff has failed to apply for sending his signature/thumb impression to handwriting expert nor examined any official or called record of the Sub-Registrar office. The two Courts below have arrived at proper findings on a registered sale-deed, which was executed, and presumption of truth is also attached with it. The applicant/plaintiff has failed to prove that the registered sale-deed was not executed in favour of the respondent No,6 Mst. Hatti, who happens to be wife of the applicant/plaintiff The learned counsel for the applicant has failed to pinpoint any illegality or infirmity in the judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below. The concurrent findings of the two Courts below are based on proper appreciation of fact and law."
49. In the case reported in 2010 CLC 1861 relevant page-1864 Nst. NASEEM v. Mst. SHEHLA DURRANI and 2 others], while dealing and dilating upon the registered document, it has been observed as below:--- "---the registered deed under the law carries validity of correctness and a strong evidence is required to cast aspersion on its genuineness. Such document is not only binding on the parties in the document but equally applicable to a third party. Specially, when execution of a registered deed is not denied then the formal proof of execution of a registered deed is not required under the law."
50. Once a document is registered then the executant cannot wriggle out of its binding effect. No one, under law, can be allowed to approbate, re-approbate or otherwise, blow hot and cold in one breath. The registered sale-deed dated 19-12-2005 [Exh.45] has been admittedly signed, therefore, now the applicant can not allege coercion and/or illegal means. In the present case the stamp paper has been purchased prior to 19-12-2005 when the sale-deed was registered.
51. Ex facie the allegations levelled against the respondents besides afterthought is misleading. No infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees has been pinpointed. The applicant/plaintiff has also failed to establish that any sort of misreading or non-reading of evidence has occurred or otherwise any illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction has been committed by the two Courts below.
52. In view of the above, I have reached the conclusion that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below are valid and quite in accordance with law. Consequently the same are upheld and the revision application thus dismissed in limine along with pending application.