' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this single order I intend to decide Civil Revision No,268-D of 2011/BWP and Civil Revision No,243-D of 2011/BWP as both these revisions have been filed against the consolidated judgment and decrees passed by the learned trial Court dated 18-10-2010 and the first appellate court dated 31-3-2011.
2. The brief facts of Civil Revision No,268-D of 2011 are that on 5-3-2009 Raees Bagga plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he be declared the owner of the suit property measuring 13 kanals six marlas fully described in the head-note of the plaint. He also prayed for allowing of decree for specific performance of the oral agreement. As per contentions of the plaint, the defendant Abdul Majeed who was owner of the suit-land, 32 years ago he agreed to sell his land to the plaintiff for Rs,16,000 per acre in the presence of the witnesses. As per narration in the plaint he time and again requested the defendant to transfer the suit property in his favour but finally when his refusal came into his knowledge the petitioner filed a suit in hand. The defendant Abdul Majeed filed written statement and denied from any oral agreement.
' The facts of Civil Revision No,243-D of 2011 are that Abdul Majeed filed a suit for possession on the basis of ownership against Bagga and his three brothers narrating therein that defendants are illegal occupants of the suit-land for the last years. They are illegally enjoying the produce of the suit-land. He asked them to vacate the suit property and on their refusal the suit was filed. The defendants filed written statement and in the written statement Bagga, etc repeated the story which was pleaded in his suit.
3. The learned trial Court framed the consolidated issues on 7.07.2009 in a suit titled Bagga v. Abdul Majeed which is the subject matter of Civil Revision No,268-D of 2011and proceedings were ordered in this suit. Parties led their respective oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner and decreed the suit filed by the respondent for possession. Aggrieved by these consolidated judgments and decrees the petitioner filed an appeal before the leaned District Judge Sadiqabad. This appeal was finally heard and decided by the learned Addl. District Judge Sadiqabad vide its judgment and decree dated 31-3-2011. The appeal was dismissed. Against these consolidated judgments and decrees these two revisions have been filed by Raees Bagga petitioner.
4. Arguments heard.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the Courts below while deciding issues Nos.2 and 3 as well as issues Nos.4 and 5 fell in error and it was a material irregularity. The findings of both the courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The evidence produced by the defendant Abdul Majeed was not reliable, therefore, the petitioner has prayed for interference by this Court. I am afraid, the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not come in the ambit of section 115 of C.P.C. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. I have seen the record. Issues Nos.2 and 3 are connected whereas issues Nos.4 and 5 are also connected issues. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not pointed out any prejudice caused to him while deciding these issues jointly, therefore, the trial Court has not violated the provisions of Order XX, Rule 5 of C.P.C. The contention of misreading and non-reading of evidence is also not born out from the record, though the new scrutiny or other interpretation of evidence is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.
By this Court. The findings of both the courts below with regard to Article 17 of the Qanun- eShahadat Order, 1984 are absolutely in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any jurisdictional defect or exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, therefore, in the light of what has been discussed above, both these revision petitions are dismissed in limine.