' ATHAR MINALLAH, J. --- The facts, in brief, are that the respondent instituted a suit for declaration, possession and mandatory injunction. According to the pleadings, she was the original resident and owner of the land, situated in Mouza Bhaika Syeddan, Tehsil and District Islamabad. The land as well as built up property was acquired by the petitioner/defendant pursuant to an award and that she was duly named in the said award. The respondent was allotted plot No. 389 Sector F-11/2, Islamabad on 01.07.1991. She also paid the instalments in accordance with the schedule. However, when she approached the petitioner/defendant for the possession of the plot, she was told that the original file relating to the plot had been misplaced. In the circumstances, the competent authority also did not give approval for construction over the plot. The learned Trial Court framed five issues.
After filing of the written statement by the petitioner/defendant, and recording of evidence the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent on 05.06.2014. An appeal was filed by the Capital Development Authority, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad, vide judgment dated 14.10.2014. The petitioner has assailed the judgments by filing the instant civil revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned judgments and decree dated 05.06.2014 and 14.10.2014 are not sustainable in law; they are against law, facts and record of the case; both the learned Courts have failed to take into consideration the written statement/record; the allotment of the suit plot is fake, fabricated and fraudulent as the documents have been managed with the connivance of some property dealer; the allotment letter dated 01.07.1991 relied upon by the petitioner is forged; the impugned judgments and decree are based upon misreading and non-reading of evidence; the issue relating to fraud was not framed by the learned Trial Court despite the fact that it was raised in the written statement; additional issue can be framed by this Court in exercise of its powers even at this stage and reliance is placed on 2011 CLC 508, 2008 MLD 259, PLD 1959 Lahore 710, 2011 MLD 1646, 2009 SCMR 3045, 2011 CLC 1295, 1992 MLD 1758, 2011 YLR 1479 and 2009 YLR 574.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the Courts have given concurrent findings on both facts and law; there is no illegality or material irregularity in exercising jurisdiction; the petitioner was afforded full and proper opportunity by the two learned Courts; the learned Trial Court had framed a composite issue; there is no misreading or non- reading of evidence nor the findings are arbitrary or perverse and, therefore, the findings on facts concurrently arrived at by the two Courts are not liable to be reversed.
4. The learned counsels have been heard and the record has been perused with their able assistance.
5. The learned Trial Court had framed five issues. Issue No. 1 is as follows:--- "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree for declaration, possession and mandatory injunction as prayed for?"
6. The above issue was composite in nature relating to the dispute between the parties. It is not in dispute that parties were afforded full and proper opportunity to present their respective cases. At no stage did the petitioner ask for framing of an additional issue, as is being argued before this Court for the first time. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any misreading or non-reading of evidence. The concurrent findings of the two Courts are neither perverse nor arbitrary. A composite issue had been framed by the learned Trial Court and accordingly decided the suit. The argument that a question/issue relating to fraud ought to have been framed does not carry any weight. The parties were fully aware of the matter in controversy between them, which was to be proved by leading evidence. The issue with regard to the alleged fraud was neither specifically or separately framed nor any step was taken by the petitioner either before the learned Trial Court or raised before the appellate forum. This Court is fortified by the law laid down in "Mst. Musarrat Bibi v. Taj Din" [2005 SCMR 772] and "M. Akraam v. Asia Kausar, etc."
[2015 SCMR 1].
7.
8. #TBS
9. (Paras 3, 4)
10. #TBE
11. For what has been stated above, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference with the judgments and decree impugned through the instant revision. No illegality or material irregularity has been pointed out which would require interference by this Court. The concurrent findings of the two Courts are in accordance with law and, therefore, the instant petition being without merit is accordingly dismissed. Civil revision .