' SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.---The present petitioner/plaintiff Qudrat Shah through the instant revision petition has questioned concurrent findings of two Courts below whereby his suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge-I Nowshera, vide his judgment and decree dated 13-3- 2010 and his appeal there against was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Nowshera vide his judgment and decree dated 21-10-2011.
2. Detailed facts have already been mentioned in the impugned judgment as well in the memo of petition. However, necessary facts out of which the present petition arises are that Qudrat Shah petitioner/plaintiff filed suit against the respondents/defendants for declaration to the effect that he had purchased suit property comprising in Khasra Nos. 8470,5420, 680,681,1507,1520, 4700/424 and 4450/ 421-423 measuring 114 Kanal 5 Marla through Mutation No,5500 attested on 9-4-1981; that Mst. Naseem Akhtar defendant No,4 (respondent No,1 herein) with the connivance of other defendants transferred the suit property to the extent of 110 Kanal 9 Marla in her name through Mutation No,7152 attested on 26-1-1995 by affixing forged thumb impression of the petitioner/plaintiff on the said Mutation and she further transferred the alleged ownership in favour of Haji Toti Khan defendant No,5 (now represented through his legal heirs respondents Nos. 2 to 8 herein) and Hazrat Gul defendant No,6 (respondent No,9 herein) through Mutation No,8329 attested on 23-5-2000. It was averred in the plaint that both the suit Mutation Nos.7152 and 8329 are wrong, illegal, ineffective upon his rights and are liable to be cancelled. The petitioner/plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from further alienation of the suit property. In alternative prayer for possession of the property in dispute was also made.
3. The suit was contested by defendants Nos.4, 7, 10 and 11 by filing written statements controverting the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties as many as 16 issues were framed including the relief. Both the parties produced their evidence in support of their respective claims and after hearing their learned counsel, the learned Civil Judge-I; Nowshera decreed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff vide his judgment and decree dated 6-11-2008.
4. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial Court, only Mst. Naseem Akhtar, respondent No,1 preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Nowshera who entrusted it to the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Nowshera who vide his judgment and decree dated 2- 9-2009 accepted the same, set aside the judgment and decree dated 6-11-2008 and remanded the case back to the trial Court for decision afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment.
5. After remand the learned trial Judge recorded further evidence of the parties and after hearing their learned counsel, this time dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff vide his judgment and decree dated 13-3-2010.
6. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred appeal bearing No,18/13 of 2010 while respondent No,1 also preferred appeal/cross objection bearing No,7/13 of 2010 and vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 21-10-2011, the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Nowshera dismissed both the appeal and cross objection. Hence the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case with their valuable assistance.
8. The stance of the petitioner/plaintiff is that he had never sold/transferred the suit property in favour of Mst.Naseem Akhtar, respondent No,1 and he is still owner in possession of the same landed property purchased by him through Mutation No, 5500 attested on 9-4-1981, therefore, the alleged sale in favour of Mst.Naseem Akhtar respondent No,1 through Mutation No,7192 attested on 26-11-1995 is the result of fraud, collusion and misrepresentation and further sale of the some of the property in favour of predecessor of respondents Nos.2 to 8 and respondent No,9 by Mst.Naseem Akhtar respondent No,1 through Mutation No, 8329 attested on 23-5-2000 is also illegal, wrong and ineffective upon his rights and thus prayed for cancellation of the aforesaid two Mutations while respondent No,1 totally denied the claim of the petitioner/plaintiff by stating that he had sold/transferred the suit property to her and in this respect Mutation No,7152 was rightly and properly attested in her favour on 26-11-1995. In order to prove the sale in her favour Mst.Naseem Akhtar respondent No,1 examined Syed Maroof Shah, Ex. Naib Tehsildar Nowshera as D.W.1 who deposed that the Mutation in question was attested by him in open Majlis at Misri Banda upon the identification of Fateh Khan Lamberdar (DW2) and Ghaffar (ADW1) and they along with the vendor (petitioner/plaintiff), have correctly affixed their thumb impression on the Mutation in question.
Fateh Khan appeared as D.W.2 who deposed that the Revenue Officer has correctly attested the suit Mutation at his identification and in presence of the vendor and he being Lamberdar has thumb impressed the same as identifier. Another witness of the Mutation in question is Ghaffar Gul who appeared as ADW1 and stated that the suit Mutation was correctly thumb impressed by him and the same was attested in presence of the vendor and witnesses of the mutation. From the statements of the above witnesses, it is crystal clear that the petitioner/ plaintiff had sold the suit property in favour of Mst.Naseem Akhtar respondent No,1 through Mutation No, 5500 attested on 9- 4-1981 and the said mutation has correctly been attested in her favour and she has rightly further transferred some of the suit property in favour of Haji Toto Khan and Hazrat Gul through Mutation No, 8329 attested on 23-5-2000.
9. Although this Court is not called upon to reappraise the evidence on record in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, yet, in the interest of justice, I have gone through the evidence produced by the parties and find that the findings of learned two Courts below are in consonance with the evidence on record and no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioner/plaintiff.
Petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim through convincing, reliable and conclusive oral and documentary evidence while the respondents/defendants have satisfactorily rebutted the claim of the petitioner through convincing evidence. Thus both the Courts below have rightly clinched the factual controversy and have dealt with the matter in a threadbare manner and have come to the concurrent conclusion after due application of independent mind, which needs no interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel has failed to point out any illegality by way of misreading and non-reading of evidence by the learned two Courts below. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court have elaborately discussed every aspect of the case and have dealt with the same in detail, leaving no room for further consideration. It is settled law that findings on question of fact or law recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction unless those findings suffer from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularity. The jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact in revisional jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C. Is very limited.
10. The process of examination of evidence for upsetting the concurrent findings of fact in exercise of powers under section 115, C.P.C. In my view is neither permissible nor warranted by law. I may also mention here that the High Court while examining a concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Has to attend the reasons given by the Courts below in support of such findings and misreading, non-reading or perverse appreciation of evidence has to be discovered in reasoning of the Courts below to justify interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
11. In view of what has been discussed above, I have come to the conclusion that the learned trial Judge as well as the learned appellate Court have passed well reasoned judgments and decrees after proper appraisal of the evidence on the file and thus the same do not at all seem to have been tainted with any illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error to warrant interference by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. Hence, revision petition in hand 4s without substance, therefore, the same is dismissed with costs.