' SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J. --- Muhammad Javed Aalam, the petitioner, through the instant civil revision has called into question the legality and sustainability of the impugned judgments and decrees dated 30.03.2006 & 14.04.2009, by which learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Fortabbas & learned Addl. District Judge, Haroonabad Camp at Fortabbas, while deciding the suit titled "Zaffar lqbal v.
Muhammad Javed Aalam" for rendition of accounts decreed the same and appeal preferred by the petitioner also met with the same fate, respectively.
2. Briefly, the facts leading towards this civil revision are as such that the present respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for rendition of accounts against the petitioner/defendant pleading therein that the parties were running a joint venture in the shape of Ice Factory as partners. After dissolution of partnership Rs, 236,000/- were found outstanding against the petitioner/defendant, in this respect he (petitioner/defendant) executed an agreement dated 03.12.1990, in which terms and conditions were settled for payment of the disputed amount with profit. Afterwards, the petitioner/defendant was asked to pay the disputed amount, but he remained procrastinating and ultimately refused. The suit was contested by the petitioner/defendant by filing written statement. The divergence in the pleadings was summed up into issues on 05.12_1995. Both the parties lead their evidence, pro and contra, in support of their respective versions. Learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 20.09.1995 passed preliminary decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. On 21.05.1999 with the consent of the parties, an Umpire was appointed to settle the dispute inter se the parties, who submitted his decision on 20.10.1999 before the learned Trial Court and making basis the said decision, the learned Trial Court finally disposed of the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. Being aggrieved of the same. The petitioner/defendant preferred an appeal, which was ultimately accepted vide judgment dated 20.02.2003, impugned order dated 20.10.1999 was set aside and suit was remanded to the learned Trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. The said judgment of learned Appellate Court was assailed before this Court by filing a civil revision, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.10.2004. After remand of the suit, the learned Trial Court vide its order and decree dated 30.03.2006, again decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff making basis the decision of the Umpire, appointed with the consent of the parties while converting the preliminary decree dated 20.09.1995 into final decree. Being aggrieved of the said order and decree, the present petitioner again preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court, which was subsequently dismissed by maintaining the order and decree of the learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 14.04.2009, this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned judgments and decrees are against facts and law; result of misreading and non-reading of evidence and incorrect appreciation of law; that the learned Trial Court did not provide any proper opportunity to file objections on the decision of the Umpire as required under the Arbitration Act, hence, by bypassing the said procedure decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff making basis the said decision of Umpire; that learned Appellate Court has erred in endorsing the order and decree of the learned Trial Court and has not made any exertion to appreciate the evidence in true perspective; that the impugned judgments and decrees are based on the decision of Umpire/Arbitrator but his decision has riot been got exhibited on the record, therefore, the same are nullity in the eye of law: that the Umpire/Arbitrator remained fail to determine the dispute inter se the parties in an unambiguous way and excessive amount was fixed, so his decision could not be made basis for passing any decree against the petitioner; that the impugned order and decree of the learned Trial Court was in sheer negligence of remand judgment, so the same was not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be struck down rather to be endorsed by the learned Appellate Court: Therefore, both the judgments and decrees passed by Courts below are liable to be set aside and resultantly the suit of the respondent/plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent by favouring the impugned judgments and decrees has controverted the grounds and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has prayed for dismissal of the instant revision petition at this preliminary sage on the ground that concurrent findings have been given by the two Courts below and no illegality, infirmity or irregularity and misreading or non-reading of evidence has been made by the learned Courts below.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The main stress of the learned counsel for the petitioner is on the point that after submission of the decision by the Umpire/Arbitrator, the learned Trial Court has not afforded opportunity to the parties to submit their objections on the said decision. In this regard, when record made available has been consulted, it is evident that the learned Trial Court provided one fair opportunity to the parties to submit their objections, if any, on the decision of the Umpire/Arbitrator, appointed with the consent of the parties, but the parties failed to submit their objections, so the learned Trial Court, by presuming that the parties had no objections on the said decision of Umpire/Arbitrator, made basis -the same and converted the preliminary decree into final decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff; therefore, the findings of the learned Trial Court in the impugned order regarding modification of the Award by mentioning that the decree could be satisfied from the share of the petitioner/defendant, are well reasoned especially when the Umpire/Arbitrator was appointed on the request and statement of the present petitioner/defendant. The learned Appellate Court has also rightly considered the facts of the case and evidence brought on record.
It is an admitted fact that the parties started a joint venture in the shape of Ice Factory and after its dissolution the 'amount in dispute was found outstanding against the petitioner/defendant and the present petitioner/defendant himself offered to appoint Umpire/Arbitrator to settle the dispute inter se him and the respondent/plaintiff and when the said Umpire/Arbitrator made decision after considering all the facts, obviously put before him, it is the present petitioner who is not agreeing with the same. In revisional jurisdiction the Court has only to see, whether any irregularity, illegality and wrong exercise of jurisdiction vested in a Court has been committed, Section 115 of C.P.C. Is reproduced below for ease of reference:--- "115. Revision.---(1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears:---
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit."
' It is well-settled by now that the High Court cannot interfere in the finding on question of law or facts, howsoever, erroneous in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This view has been fortified by case of Hakim-ud-Din through L. Rs, & others v. Faiz Bukhsh & others (2007 SCM R 870), in which it has been held that, "It is established proposition of law that finding on questions of law or fact, howsoever, erroneous the same ma be recorded b a Court of exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115. Unless such findings suffer from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularity," Similar view has been reiterated in case of "Abdul Aziz v. Sheikh Fateh Muhammad"
(2007 SCM R 336). But in the present case, no such occasion has arisen at the trial as well as appellate stage, so this Court finds no illegality, irregularity or infirmity, wrong exercise of jurisdiction vested upon the Courts below while passing the impugned order, judgment and decrees, respectively; therefore, same do not call for any interference by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
7. In view of the above said discussion, when the petitioner/defendant has failed to establish any illegality, irregularity or infirmity in the findings of Courts below it can be safely observed that the same are result of ppraising the evidence in true perspective, applying of judicial mind, rightly interpreting the law and upto the dexterity, therefore, same do not call for any interference by this Court. Resultantly, by placing reliance on the judgments supra, this civil revision is dismissed in limine. Civil revision .