1. SARDAR ABDUL HAMEED KHAN, J.--- The captioned appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dhirkot dated 12-10-2004 whereby judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Dhirkot on 31-8-2002 has been maintained.
2. Precise facts of the case are that Khan Muhammad Khan and others plaintiffs/respondents, herein, filed a suit for declaration-cum-adverse possession in the Court of Civil Judge, Dhirkot stating therein that land comprising Khasra No.2 measuring 25 Kanal, 14 marlas situated in village Chirian was entered in the name of respondents. It was alleged that the land was in possession of the plaintiffs since their forefathers. A counter-suit for possession was also filed by the Saif Ali Khan and others, appellants, herein on 4-11-1990. This suit was contested by the respondents herein by filing written statement. The learned trial Court consolidated both the suits and framed issues in light of the respective pleadings of the parties. The parties were also provided an opportunity of leading evidence and ultimately the trial Court vide its judgment dated 31-8-2002, decreed the suit filed on behalf of Khan Muhammad Khan and others whereas counter-suit filed for possession on behalf of the appellants, herein was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree, Saif Ali Khan and others filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Dhirkot on 29-10-2002. The learned Judge also dismissed the appeal vide his judgment and decree dated 29-4-2002, hence, this second appeal.
3. Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Mughal, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the suit filed on behalf of appellants, was amply proved by leading oral as well as documentary evidence, hence, it was enjoined upon the Courts below to decree the suit. He argued that the Courts below committed grave errors while rendering the impugned judgments. The learned counsel requested for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.
4. Sardar Atta Elahi Abbasi, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence brought on the record in its true perspective and rightly arrived at the conclusion. He submitted that no misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. Law is well-settled that 2nd appeal lies only, where some misreading or non-reading of evidence or record is shown or the judgments are arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law. No such eventuality has been pointed out by the appellants, herein, hence, in my considered view the judgments under challenge do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, thus, need no interference by this Court.
7. In view of what has been stated above, finding no force in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed.