1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.--- Through this Civil Revision Application the applicants have challenged the judgment dated 28-7-2000 passed by learned VIIth Additional District Judge, Karachi South whereby he dismissed the Civil Appeal No.13 of 2000 filed by the applicants and upheld the judgment dated 24-1-2000 followed by Decree dated 26-1-2000 passed by IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South in Suit No.2997 of 1986 (Old Civil Suit No.3686 of 1981), whereby the suit filed by the respondent was decreed.
2. ' The case has a chequered history. Dispute is over management and administration of Jamia Masjid Haft Sultan Bab-e-Muhammadi, situated at Mahmoodabad, Karachi. Initially the respondent trust filed a suit through its General Secretary namely Maqsood Ahmed for declaration and permanent injunction against applicant/defendants who were nine in number but subsequently the Trust Idarah Tahaffuz Amn-oIkhlaq Aamma was added as defendant No.10 and amended plaint was filed through Syed Umer, President of the plaintiff trust. In the plaint, inter alia, it was stated that the management and administration of the masjid was being run by the plaintiff trust when on 21st August, 1981 all the defendants armed with lathies and dandas came in the masjid and stopped the Pesh Imam from leading the prayers and tried to take over the management, administration and control of the masjid. In the suit declaration was sought to the effect that the Board of Trustees of the plaintiff trust are lawfully and legally entitled to run, manage and control the masjid and its attached shops etc. And that defendants have no locus standi over the management, administration and control of the masjid. Declaration was also sought that the so- called trust formed by the defendants does not confer any right and title to the defendants in the administration and management of the masjid. A direction was also sought to be issued to the defendants to handover the administration and management of the mosque to the plaintiff.
3. Restraint order was also sought against the defendants.
4. ' It was asserted in the plaint that the management and administration of the masjid prior to the registration of trust deed was being run and controlled by a registered body and the same office bearers then formed the plaintiff trust and the same office-bearers had been in continuous possession of administration and management of the masjid since 1977. The mosque was constructed by them with their own resources and with the help of 'other namazies. They used to make payment of salaries Pesh-Imam and Moazzin regularly and continuously. Thereafter on the desire of the namazies, the plaintiff trust was formed and Syed Umer was elected as President and Maqsood Ali Shah as General Secretary. It was further asserted that although the defendants had played no role in the establishment and welfare of the masjid but for their ulterior motives they used to interfere in the smooth and peaceful management and administration of the masjid.
5. ' The suit was decreed on 26-7-1986 and being aggrieved by such decree the defendants/applicants filed application for setting aside ex parte decree which was dismissed and thereafter appeal preferred by them also met the same fate, however, this Court in Civil Revision Application No.33 of 1989 remanded the matter with direction to record evidence of the defendants. On remand, learned Xth Civil Judge, Karachi South after recording the evidence vide order dated 30-5-1989 dismissed the suit on the legal ground that suit was barred under section 92, C.P.C. The said order was upheld in appeal by District Judge, Karachi South and ultimately R.A.
6. No.90 of 1990 filed against the order of appellate court was also dismissed on 13-1-1992. However, in C.A. No.12-K of 1992 honourable Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case with direction to decide the suit on merits. Thereafter the suit was decreed vide Judgment dated 28-4- 1993 but vide Judgment dated 7-11-1994 passed in Civil Appeal No.90 of 1993 by Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi South matter was remanded back with direction that after examining both the parties and their witnesses and allowing them to produce the documents as per list, the case may be decided afresh. The said .Judgment was assailed in R.A.No.329 of 1994 before this Court which was dismissed on 19-12-1995 and vide order dated 23-4-1996 honourable Supreme Court also declined to interfere in the matter. Thereafter matter was proceeded with firstly by XIIIth Civil Judge, Karachi South and then by IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South who after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, decreed the suit on 24-1- 2000 and Decree was drawn on 26-1-2000. The said judgment was impugned in Civil Appeal No.13 of 2000 before VIIth Additional District Judge, Karachi South who dismissed the appeal vide Judgment dated 28-7-2000. The judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court were assailed in the instant Revision Application. Previously the revision was heard by my learned brother, Mohammad Ashraf Leghari, J. (as he then was) who was pleased to allow the Revision Application and set aside the judgments of the two courts below vide Judgment dated 2-4-2002.
7. The respondents being aggrieved by the said judgment, preferred Civil Petition No.563-K of 2002 before honourable Supreme Court and ultimately matter was remanded by Supreme Court to this Court vide Order dated 8-3-2006 in following terms:--- "After having argued the matter at some length, the learned counsel representing both the parties have agreed that since the legal issue of filing of the first appeal by competent person and thereafter the revision before the High Court by the competent person, was not gone through by the learned Judge of the High Court, before passing the impugned judgment the matter may be remanded to the High Court of Sindh at Karachi for deciding the Revision Application afresh on merits in accordance with law and the parties may be permitted to raise all legal pleas before the High Court including the plea of filing of the appeal and revision by incompetent persons which has been raised before us.
2. Therefore, this petition is converted into an appeal and allowed. The impugned judgment dated 2-4-2002 of the High Court of Sindh, passed in R.A. No.142 of 2000 is set aside and the revision application filed by the respondents will be deemed to be pending before the High Court for its decision afresh on merits in accordance with law. There is no order as to costs."
8. ' Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the appeal before the Additional District Judge as well as the instant revision application have been filed by competent persons. According to him, the respondent/plaintiff himself impleaded Idara-e-Tahafuz-e-Amn-o-Ikhlaq-e-Amma Trust in the amended plaint but at the time of filing Civil Appeal inadvertently the word "Trust" was omitted in the title, however vide order dated 14-11-2000 word "trust" was ordered to be added in the title of the revision application. He further contended that the judgments of two courts below suffer from patent illegality and irregularity and both the courts erred on facts and in law while passing the impugned judgments; that the impugned judgments of two courts below suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence. He further contended that the two courts below have not properly appreciated the documents brought on record during the course of evidence. He prayed for allowing the revision application and setting aside of the judgments of the two courts below.
9. ' Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents contended that no trust in the name of applicant No.1 is in existence as admittedly by Deed of Amendment got registered on 2-1-1999 name of the previous trust i.e. Applicant No.1 was changed to Jamia Masjid Haft-e-Sultan Trust Bab-e- Muhammadi Trust, as such the Civil Appeal as well as Revision Application have been filed by incompetent person/trust. He further contended that applicants Zakir Hussain, Abdul Ghafoor have died whereas applicant Muhammad Yousuf, Muhammad Saeed and Syed Ashraf Ali are also not in existence as their whereabouts are not known. According to him, the revision application by dead/non-existent persons is not maintainable. He further contended that as per provision of Order XLI, Rule 1 read with section 115, C.P.C. While challenging any judgment and decree, certified copy of the Decree is required to be Tiled mandatorily which has not been done in the instant case, as such therevision application is not maintainable on this ground also. He also argued that concurrent findings of the two courts can be interfered into under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court only in exceptional and rare circumstances. According to him, even on merits the applicants have no case and the two courts below while passing the impugned judgments have assigned cogent and sounds reasons. He submitted that the trust of the respondent/plaintiff was formed prior to the trust of the applicants and the respondents had been in continuous possession of the management, control and administration of the masjid since very beginning, as such the findings given by the two courts below are just and proper and the impugned judgments require no interference. He prayed for dismissal of the revision application.
10. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the material placed on record.
11. ' The honourable Supreme Court remanded the matter mainly to decide the legal issue as to whether the first appeal and thereafter the revision before the High Court were filed by the competent persons or not. However, in the remand order parties were permitted to raise all legal pleas before this Court including the plea of filing of the appeal and revision by incompetent persons. I, therefore, in the first instance, would deal with the issue of competency of Civil Appeal as well as instant Revision Application.
12. ' It appears that initially Suit No.3682 of 1981 was filed by the respondent in which following persons were arrayed as defendants:
(1) Zakir Hussain son of not known
(2) Saeed Ahmed son of Zaheer Ahmed
(3) Athar Mahtab son of not known
(4) Muhammad Yousuf alias Baboo
(5) Karim Ahmed son of not known
(6) Muhammad Ashraf son of not known
(7) Muhammad Anwar son of not known
(8) Muhammad Saleem son of not known
(9) Rao Sabir Hayat son of not known ' However, subsequently amended plaint was filed in which "The Trust IDARAH TAHAFFUZ AMNO IKHLAQ AAMMA" was added and on transfer of the suit to the Court of XIIIth Civil Judge, Karachi South it was renumbered as Suit No.2997 of 1985. The said trust was registered in the year 1981. The suit was decreed on 26-1-2000. It has come on record that a Deed of Amendment of Idara Tahafuz-e-Amn-o-Ikhlaq-eAmma was got registered before, the Sub-Registrar, T-Division-II-A at pages 81 to 104 Volume 318 of Book No.1-Addi. Dated 2-1-1999 whereby name of the previous Trust of the applicants/defendants was changed to "Jamia Masjid Haft-e-Sultan Trust Bab-e- Muhammadi". On 9-2-2000 Civil Appeal No.13 of 2000 was preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Suit No.2997 of 1985 by "Idara-e Tahafuz-e-Amn-o-Ikhlaq-e-Aamma" and others.
13. The said appeal was disposed of vide Judgment' dated 28-7-2000 against which instant Revision Application was filed on 3-8-2000. From above it is clear that at the time when Civil Appeal as well as Revision Application were filed, "Idara-e-Tahaffuz Amn-o-Ikhlaq-e-Amma" was not in existence having been replaced by "Jama Masjid Haft-e-Sultan Trust Bab-e-Muhammadi". So far as the stand taken by the learned counsel for the applicant that vide order dated 14-11-2000 word "trust" was ordered to be added in the title of the revision application, therefore revision was filed by competent person is concerned, suffice it to say that even then, in view of above, the said trust was not existing at the relevant time.
14. ' So far as other applicants in the revision application and the appellants in Civil Appeal are concerned, except Zakir Hussain none of the appellants/applicants was arrayed as defendants in the suit filed by the respondent and admittedly Zakir Hussain has also died and at no point of time his legal heirs were brought on record. It is in view of this background that the applicants filed C.M.A. No.3432 of 2008 in this Revision Application for impleading certain persons who were not parties either in the main suit, civil appeal or even in the instant revision application. In the said application the applicants have clearly stated that Zakir Hussain has died whereas applicants Muhammad Yousuf, Saeed Ahmed and Syed Ashraf Ali, have left the place and are no more interested in the matter and even otherwise, as stated above, they were not arrayed as defendants in the main suit.
15. ' In view of above it is manifestly clear that the Civil Appeal as well as Revision Application were filed by incompetent persons, as such revision application is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.
16. ' The legal plea raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that revision application is liable to be dismissed as no certified copy of Decree has been annexed with the revision application as required under Order XLI, Rule 1, C.P.C. Is devoid of force for the simple reason that such requirement is for filing an appeal and not revision. Section 115 only requires for furnishing copies of pleadings, documents and order of subordinate Court, there is no mention of copy of Decree. If any case-law is needed, reference can be made to 2006 YLR 2613.
17. ' So far as merit of the case is concerned, learned trial court has elaborately discussed each and every aspect of the case and has assigned cogent reasons for decreeing the suit. Likewise Appellate Court after examining all the points raised in the appeal has passed a well-reasoned judgment. Learned counsel has not been able to show that either there is misreading or non- reading of evidence nor any material irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the concurrent findings of two court below has been pointed out.
18. ' Learned counsel for the applicants has not been able to point out any glaring misreading or non- reading of evidence. What misreading, according to the applicants, has been committed by learned trial court while decreeing the suit, is (i) that the plaintiff's witness Syed Umer through whom the suit was filed, first admitted in his evidence that he had started his embroidery work but the management committee of the masjid had raised objection on it therefore he left the masjid, however in his cross-examination he stated that he had not said so in examination in chief but voluntarily said that he had deposed those words about Saddar mosque, (ii) that the said Syed Umer had accepted in cross-examination that his ouster from the masjid took place much before the filing of the suit, as such the courts below misread the evidence, (iii) that respondent's witness Qari Allah Dad deposed that Muhammad Umer stated to him that he was brailvi but he has become deobandi.
19. ' I have examined the evidence of said Syed Umer. So far as first assertion is concerned, he had clearly stated in his cross-examination, "It is correct to suggest that apart from reciting the prayers I am also doing the business of machine ambridary. It is incorrect to suggest that defendants raised objection on my private job and they discharged me from my duties." He also explained that in his previous statement he had deposed about the leaving of Saddar mosque and not the mosque in question. After such explanation, the burden was lying on the shoulders of the applicants/defendants to rebut such assertion but from the, perusal of entire cross-examination it appears that not a single word was put to him in this regard. The second assertion that the said Syed Umer admitted that his ouster from the masjid took place much before the filing of the suit has also no legs to stand in view of above-quoted statement of Syed Umer and his explanation that the fact of ouster related to Saddar mosque and not the mosque in question. So far as third assertion is concerned, the said Syed Umer in his own cross-examination categorically disposed. "It is incorrect to suggest that first I disclosed my identity as belongs to Barelvi faith and subsequently I changed my faith from Barelvi to Deobandi and the defendants on the above score turned me out from the subject mosque." In view of such deposition, the statement of Qari Allah Ditta carries no weight. He, in fact, deposed in cross-examination, "I do not know whether Muhammad Umer stated that he was brailvi but he told me that he had become deobandi." In his examination he deposed, "The mosque was in the management of trustee persons having deobandi thought maslik. ... The mosque was never managed by the persons having brailvi maslak."
20. ' In view of above it can safely be held that there is no material misreading of evidence. Needless to emphasize 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 C jurisdiction in a manner contrary to law or in a manner not warranted by law. In the case reported in 2001 SCM R 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."
21. ' In the case reported in 2006 CLC Peshawar 311 it was held that High Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in concurrent findings of court below while exercising jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Unless and until judgments of Courts below were outcome of misreading or non- reading of evidence or decision of case was in violation of parameters prescribed by superior courts.
22. ' In view of above discussion, the Revision Application merits dismissal being not maintainable having been filed by incompetent persons and even otherwise the concurrent findings recorded by two courts below need no interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, with the result the Revision Application is dismissed.