' SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.---In this revision petition, Sher Afzal and others legal heirs of Mir Afzal, petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged the judgment and decree of the learned Addl.
District Judge-XIII, Peshawar dated 8-12-2010 whereby he dismissed their appeal and maintained the judgment and decree dated 29-1-2010 of the learned Civil Judge-II, Peshawar whereby he dismissed the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs for possession through partition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mir Afzal, predecessor of the petitioners/plaintiffs brought a suit against Mst. Khapairay and others for possession through partition of land measuring 1-kanal 14- marla comprised in Khata Nos.252/1352, 339/1749 and Khasra Nos.1609 and 3312/1608 situated in Mauza Bhudni, Tehsil and District, Peshawar to the effect that they along with respondents/defendants Nos.1 to 7 are owners in possession of the disputed property inherited from their predecessor-in-interest. The family settlement was effected between them in which the disputed property to the extent of 1-kanal 14-marla had fallen into the share of the petitioners/plaintiffs and they want to separate their share for which the respondents/defendants were asked time and again to admit their claim but they refused. Hence, the present suit.
3. The suit was contested by the respondents/defendants on legal and factual grounds and in view of the pleadings of the parties, eight issues were framed:-- ISSUES.
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got cause of action?
(2) Whether the suit is hit by res-judicata? 0) Whether the suit is hit by limitation?
(4) Whether defendants Nos.43 to 50 are entitled to improvements?
(5) Whether any private partition had taken place?
(6) Whether the plaintiff has any right in suit property?
(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for?
(8) Relief.
' Evidence pro and contra was recorded and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 29-1-2010 dismissed the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs. They filed an appeal which also met the same fate vide judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge-XIII, Peshawar vide his judgment and decree dated 8-12-2010.
4. Dis-satisfied from the concurrent findings of the two Courts below, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue that both the Courts below have arrived at a wrong conclusion and have ignored the material evidence on record and committed gross illegality and irregularity in dismissing the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs. The learned counsel next contended that private partition between the contestant parties has taken place therefore, the parties are bound to accept it.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contestant respondents supported the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the Courts below and contended that the same are unexceptionable and do not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity calling interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Although this Court is not called upon to reappraise the evidence on record in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, yet, in the interest of justice, I have gone through the evidence and find that the reasonings recorded by the Courts below are in consonance with the evidence on record and no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality by way of misreading and non- reading of evidence by the Courts below. The trial Court as well as appellate Court have elaborately discussed every aspect of the case and have dealt with the case in detail, leaving no room for further consideration. The learned trial Judge has taken pains to appraise the evidence on record in a correct manner. He neither misread nor kept out of consideration any material piece of evidence. The conclusions drawn by him from the evidence/material on record are fully justified in the circumstances of the case and learned appellate Court has given valid and reasons to affirm the same.
7. The process of examination of evidence for upsetting a concurrent finding of fact in exercise of powers under section 115, C.P.C. In my view is neither permissible nor warranted by law. As earlier pointed out by me, interference with a finding of fact of the Courts below by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Could only be justified if such finding is the result of perverse appreciation of evidence on record. A wrong or erroneous conclusion on a question of fact by the Courts below is not open to interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. The High Court while examining, a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below in exercise of its revisional, jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Has to attend to the reasons given by the Courts below in support of such finding and misreading, non- reading or perverse appreciation of evidence has to be discovered in the reasoning of the Courts below to justify interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
8. Pursuant to above, I am satisfied that the findings of the courts below are neither based on misreading or non-reading of evidence nor the same suffer from any jurisdictional defect warranting interference of this court in its revisional jurisdictional. The civil revision is bereft of substance. The same is dismissed with costs.