' CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.---The instant civil 'revision is directed against judgments and decrees passed by the courts below by way of which suit filed by the respondent for declaration along with perpetual` injunction was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 8-5- 2003. Petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned appellate court on .17-2- 2004. Hence this civil revision.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a buffalo and a calf of the petitioners were stolen and they cast suspicion upon the respondent. The local Police arrested the respondent and due to the influence of the petitioners they planned to compensate the stolen buffalo from the respondent illegally and forcibly and the petitioners compelled the respondent to hand over his own buffalo and three calves to Mr.Raja Manan as surety. Respondent accepted the demand of the petitioners, thereafter the respondent was declared innocent and when he demanded his cattles, petitioners refused to do so.
3. Petitioners appeared in the learned trial Court and contested the suit tooth and nail while submitting their written statement. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed as many as 6 issues including relief. The learned trial Court recorded the pro and contra evidence of both the parties and after hearing the arguments of both the parties learned trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are against law and facts and also based on surmises and conjectures; that the respondent theft the cow and a calf of the petitioners and he was found guilty in a punchayat which was held on his own wish and desire. That both the courts below have misread and non- read the evidence produced by the petitioners on the record.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. It.Is a stark reality that respondent was owner of the cattles mentioned in the contents of the plaint which were given to one Raja Manan as surety. However petitioners have not produced any solid proof regarding the ownership of the said cattles. The contention of the petitioners that the respondent theft their cattles and during the Punchayat he was found guilty has no force because they have not produced any solid evidence in this regard. It is pertinent to mention here that if the respondent had stolen the cattles of the petitioners then they should have to file a criminal case against the respondent. The said so-called Punchayat has no legal sanctity to declare any one guilty or innocent. Furthermore there is concurrent findings of facts in the matter and the courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees took a count of every bit of evidence placed before them and were not shown to have been over looked any part of the record from their judicious consideration. Findings of the lower courts on question of facts and law based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led in the suit were not susceptible to review to be upset or substituted in revisional jurisdiction. The findings of the courts below based on material on record would not be amenable to interfere with in revisional jurisdiction.
Reliance can be.Made to the cases of Guldar Khan v. Esa Khan (1993 SCM R 2099), Nazir Ahmad v.
Boota (1989 SCM R 450) and Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291.
7. Resultantly, this revision petition having no force is dismissed with no order as to costs.