1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---By this single order I propose to dispose of abovesaid two Civil Revision Applications as in all the revisions the parties are the same, besides the facts as well as law involved in all the revisions are also same.
2. ' Through these Civil Revision Applications the applicant Bashir Ahmed Mirza has challenged common Judgment dated 30-11-2000 passed in Civil Appeals Nos.75/1993 and 76/1993 by learned lInd Additional District Judge, Karachi East whereby he dismissed both the appeals filed by live applicant and upheld the consolidated Judgment/Decree dated 14th July, 1993 and 25th July, 1993 in Civil Suit Nos.1168/1985 (Old No,939/1980) and Civil Suit No,3026/1985 (Old No,1262/ 1980) respectively passed by learned Vth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East whereby he dismissed Suit No,1168/1985 filed by the petitioner and decreed Suit No,3026/ 1985 filed by respondent No,l.
3. ' Precisely the facts of the case are that the applicant filed Suit No,1168/1985 stating therein that respondents Nos.2 to 4 offered to sell 20 sq. Yards demarcated subdivided plot No,9 of Survey No,107 situated at Deh Digh Tapo Malir Tehsil and District Karachi and the applicant agreed to purchase the same and accordingly sublease for 99 years was executed and registered at No,6894 dated 15-7-1974 by the said respondents in favour of the applicant for the consideration paid and possession of the said sub-divided plot was handed over to him and he was waiting for proper time to commence the construction on the said plot when respondent No,
1. Kamaluddin Alvi knowing that a proper lease was executed and registered in favour of the applicant with mala fide intention applicant and in an illegal manner trespassed into the said plot in or about 1976 in connivance with respondents Nos.2 to 4 and raised unauthorized construction and thereafter the applicant several times approached the respondents but they kept the applicant on false hopes and promised that respondent No,I will vacate the plot but they did not fulfil their commitment. It is further asserted that despite repeated efforts on the part of the petitioner respondent No,1 was continuing his illegal occupation of the said plot and respondents Nos.2 to 4 did not take any step to remove respondent No,1 from the said' plot, thus the applicant was deprived of his legal right of using and occupying the said plot hence the petitioner filed the aforesaid suit against the respondents. It is further stated that during the pendency of the suit the applicant came to know that respondent No,1 in connivance with respondent No,6 manipulated certain documents and tampered the record of Messrs Zee Shan. Construction Company and got issued certain receipts and documents through respondent No,6 who had no authority in this regard. The status of respondent is no more than of a trespasser and besides the, fact that he is liable to deliver the vacant 'possession of the said plot to the applicant, the respondent No,1 is also liable,to pay the mesne profit for the use and occupation of the said plot at the rate of Rs,500 per month.
4. 'On the other hand, respondent No,1 filed Suit No,3026/1985 for specific performance and cancellation of lease deed executed in favour of the applicant in respect of the said plot claiming, the same to be forged and bogus.
5. ' The defendants in the above two suits filed written statements wherein they denied the allegations made by the plaintiff of the respective suit.
6. ' Learned trial .Court consolidated both the suits and framed consolidated issues. After recording of evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the trial court vide Judgment and decree dated 14-7-1993 and 25-7-1993 respectively dismissed Suit No,1168/1985 filed by the petitioner and decreed Suit No,3026/1985 filed by respondent No,
1. Against the said judgment and decree, the applicant preferred Civil Appeals Nos.75 and 76 of 1993. The appellate court vide judgment dated 14-2-1998 remanded the case to the trial court for fresh decision in the matter after hearing the arguments of the parties and the' trial court was further directed to give reasons and findings on each issue separately. The said judgment was challenged in revision before this court and this court remanded the matter to the appellate court with the direction that the appeal should be re- heard and the parties were directed to appear before the court on 4-11-2000 for proceeding with the case. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the appellate court dismissed both the appeals vide common judgment/decree dated 30-11-2000, hence these revision applications.
7. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record.
8. ' Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are bad in law and on facts and the same are not based on evidence, hence the same being arbitrary, capricious, are not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside. He further contended that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from misreading and non- reading of evidence. According to him, the trial court committed serious illegality and material irregularity in appreciating that respondent No,1 miserably failed to discharge burden of proof in respect of his claim. He further contended that the findings of the two courts below are based on presumptions, surmises and conjectures, hence not sustainable in law. He prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgments and decrees.
9. ' On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,1 supported the impugned judgments and decrees contending that the same are in accordance with the law and sound and cogent reasons have been assigned for the findings arrived at by the courts below. He further contended that these revision applications are not maintainable against the concurrent findings. According to him the courts below have not committed any illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error so as to render the impugned judgments and decrees as null and void. He prayed for dismissal of the revision application. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the case-law reported in 2006 SCMR 50, 2006 MLD 1443, 2007 CLC Peshawar 894, 2007 MLD 985 Peshawar, PLD 1987 SC 228, PLD 2005 Peshawar 69 and 2009 CLC 137.
10. ' So far as the lease deed executed in favour of the applicant is concerned, the applicant Bashir Ahmed Mirza produced the lease deed in his evidence which shows that the same was signed by the attorney Wazir Khan for himself as well as on behalf of copartners of the Construction Company but no such power of attorney was produced before the trial Court to show that he was legally authorized by the remaining partners to execute the sub-lease. All the three documents viz. Lease deed, possession order and application form bear the same date which also shows some mala fide on the part of the partners of the company. Moreover respondents Nos.1 to 4 in their written statement categorically admitted that previously some plot was allotted to respondent No,1, Kamaluddin Alvi but later on his allotment was cancelled due to his failure to pay the dues and after cancellation of the plot, the same was allotted to the applicant. They also admitted in their written statement that in Suit No,334/1974 Receiver was appointed in respect of the affairs of the Zeeshan Construction Company, thus the company ceased to exist as soon as receiver was appointed to deal with the business of the company. The Receiver in his written statement has clearly stated that there exists no name of the applicant Bashir Ahmed Mirza as allottee or sub- lessee in respect of the disputed plot and record also shows no deposit of amount nor any possession was ever delivered to him. He further stated that respondent No,
1. Kamaluddin Alvi is in possession of the suit plot since 1974 and he is not a trespasser but he is in authorized possession of the plot in question being lawful allottee as his name existed in the record when he took over the charge as Receiver. He further stated that the applicant is not the legal allottee and the suit filed by him is false and fictitious one. Perusal of the record shows that respondent. No,1 had submitted the application form on 6-3-1973 and made instalments through receipts dated 6-3-1973. 12-5-1973, 8- 2-1974 and the receiver has also certified vide Certificate Exh.21 that respondent No,1 has paid all the dues in respect of Plot No,9/107 of Zeeshan Construction Company and he was authorized to complete the construction work by the receiver. Respondent No,1 also produced Bank Challans, Electric Bills etc., which establish is possession. P.T.1. Form his original has also been produced by him which shows that he is the owner of the said plot. The validity and authenticity of the said documents has not been challenged by the petitioner. It also appears that no notice was issued to respondent No,1 before, cancelling his allotment. He being in possession of the plot in question was entitled to protect his right by virtue of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act which provides a defence to a transferee to protect his possession. It seems that without cancelling the previous allotment in favour of respondent No,1 after observing legal formalities new sale-deed in favour of the applicant was registered by a co-partner of the Construction Company which is not permissible under the law.
11. ' Yet there is another aspect of the case. It is now well-settled that revisional jurisdiction of this 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 SCMR 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."
12. 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. In the instant case the applicant has not been able to make out a case which could justify this court to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court.
13. ' Upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in these Revision Applications which are accordingly dismissed in limine along with pending applications.