1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this Civil Revision Application, the applicant Shamim Ahmed has challenged Judgment dated 5-1-2011 passed by learned IIIrd Additional District Judge. Karachi West whereby he dismissed Civil Appeal No,27 of 2010 filed by the applicant and upheld the Judgment/Decree dated 27-1-2010 passed by learned IVth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi West whereby he dismissed applicant's Suit No,559 of 2007.
2. ' Precisely, the facts of the case are that applicant filed a civil suit for possession and permanent injunction against the respondents stating therein that he is lawful owner of Plot No,221, Sector 14-B, Orangi Town, Karachi measuring 80 sq. Yards. Vide registered lease with Sub-Registrar 'T' Division, IV-, Karachi and just adjacent to the house of the petitioner/ plaintiff is situated the house of respondents Nos.1 and 2 bearing No,198. Sector-14-B, Orangi Town, Karachi. It was asserted that at the time of raising the construction of the said house the respondents had taken 8 feet excess land owned by the petitioner as shown in the approved plan issued by the concerned department. It was further asserted that the petitioner repeatedly requested the respondents to demolish the excess construction of 8 feet but they flatly refused to do so, rather they started issuing threats to him directly and indirectly including the threat of dispossessing him from his remaining property.
3. ' Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement wherein they challenged the maintainability of the suit stating that the suit is barred under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. They denied the allegation of having encroached upon plaintiff's 8 feet land and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. ' Official respondent No,3 in their written statement while admitting the ownership of both the parties to the extent of their respective plots, added that the respondents Nos.1 and 2 have encroached certain piece of land owned by the petitioner/plaintiff.
5. ' The learned trial Court after framing of issues, recording of evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree-dated 27-1-2010. The said judgment was challenged in appeal which was also dismissed, hence this civil revision application.
6. ' I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the material available on the record.
7. ' Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned judgments passed by the courts below are patently illegal and not sustainable in law and on facts. He further contended that the learned trial Court while dismissing the suit did not consider the written statement of the official respondent viz. District Officer who has not only admitted the claim of the petitioner but also showed from the map the portion illegally occupied by the respondents. He further contended that the two courts below also did not consider the fact that the respondents miserably failed to produce any tangible evidence in support of his claim of ownership of the allegedly excess portion.
8. He prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgments.
9. ' Conversely, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 supported the judgments passed by the two courts below and contended that the same have been passed after applying judicious mind and appreciating properly the evidence adduced by the parties and on the basis of inspection report of Commissioner. According to him, the revision application against the concurrent findings is not maintainable. He further contended that the DDO in his letter dated 14-6-2006 did not support the plea taken by the petitioner. He further contended that the suit 'filed by the petitioner was itself not maintainable and the same was rightly dismissed by the trial Court, so also the appeal by the appellate court being not sustainable in law. He prayed for dismissal of the revision application also.
10. ' Learned counsel for the official respondent supported the judgments of the two courts below and contended that the suit as well as the appeal filed by the petitioner were rightly dismissed. He prayed for dismissal of the revision application too.
11. It appears that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is mainly based on the report of the commissioner who was appointed by the trial Court to inspect the property in question and submit his report. The said report has not been assailed either in the appeal filed before the appellate court or in the instant revision and not a single word has been said about said report, rather, the said report is an admitted report as the same has duly been signed by both the parties. According to the said report submitted by the Commissioner after inspection of the property in question, both the parties i.e, the petitioner as well respondents Nos.1 and 2 have encroached the portion of the street. If the encroached portion of the street is included in the plot of the petitioner, it comes to 82 sq. Yards, while after including the encroached portion of the street in the plot of the respondents, it come to a total area of 89 sq. Yards. Excluding the encroached portion of the street from the land of the petitioner, the total area comes to 74 sq. Yards and in the same manner the total area of the plot of the respondents comes to 76 sq. Yards. From the said report it is crystal clear that although the plots of both, the petitioner as well as respondents Nos.1 and 2, are measuring 80 sq. Yards each but, in fact, they possess lesser area of the land and both of them have encroached upon the portion of the public street. Furthermore, the DDO vide his letter dated 14-6-2006 also took the same stand. For the sake of convenience the relevant portion from the said letter is reproduced as under:-- "Survey has been conducted and ascertained that both the occupants of plots have constructed their plots in improper manner From the perusal of the inspection report submitted before the trial Court, it is crystal clear that in the said report there is no mention that the respondents have encroached any portion from the land of the petitioner.
12. ' Besides, it is now well-settled that revisional jurisdiction of the Court has very limited scope and it can be exercised only in those cases where subordinate court has exceeded its jurisdiction or has declined to exercise jurisdiction or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction in a manner contrary to law or in a manner not warranted by law. In the case reported in 2001 SCM R 789 honourable Supreme Court held as under:-- "It is now firmly settled law that findings of facts recorded by the First Appellate Court based on appraisal of evidence and raising of inferences in its discretion could not be interfered with under section 115, C.P.C. Merely because a different view was also possible to be taken, therefore, the impugned judgment of the High Court suffers from want of jurisdiction."
13. In another case reported in PLD 1994 SC 291, the honourable Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact of two courts below could not be disturbed by High Court either in second appeal or in revisional jurisdiction unless Courts below while recording finding of fact had either misread the evidence or had ignored any material piece of evidence on record or the same was perverse---Jurisdiction of High Court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction was narrower it could only interfere with the order of subordinate Court on ground that Court below had assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in it, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law or that Court below had acted with material irregularity affecting its jurisdiction in the case and the High Court under revisional jurisdiction can only correct jurisdictional errors of Courts below---Fact that High Court while reappraising evidence on record reached a conclusion different from that arrived at by two Courts below, such fact could never be a ground justifying interference with a finding of fact muchless a concurrent finding of fact recorded by Courts below on basis of evidence produced before them.
14. ' In view of above, the revision application merits dismissal. Accordingly, the Revision Application is dismissed in limine.