1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.--- Through this Civil Revision Application the applicant has challenged Judgment dated 28-3-2012 and Decree dated 5-4-2012 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi Central whereby he dismissed Civil Appeal No.175 of 2009 filed by the applicant and upheld Judgment and Decree both dated 18-11-2009 passed by learned VIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi Central whereby he decreed Civil Suit No.159 of 2003 (Old No.780 of 1994) filed by the respondents.
2. ' Precisely the facts of the case are that the respondents filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.30,00,000 and return of machinery against the applicant and respondent No.6 stating therein that the husband of respondent No.1 and father of remaining respondents, was running a firm in the name and style of Industrial Engineering Services having office at Gudo Multan Cantt as well as at Karachi. During the course of such business in the end of the year 1992 he became ill, hence he shifted his office permanently to Karachi in order to get his property determined and to supervise his works carried out by his firm outside Karachi, therefore respondent No.6, Masood Ahmed, being his real brother, who although was one of the defendants in the suit and one of the appellants in the appeal, has been arrayed as respondent No.6 in the instant revision application and the present applicant Rana Nazir Ahmed, being their friend were employed to look after the work (both the applicant and respondent No.6 hereinafter jointly referred to as 'the defendants'). From February, 1993 to December, 1994 the deceased husband of respondent No.1 namely Abdul Malik had given 8 cheques to the defendants at Karachi for a total amount of Rs.18,37,000 on different dates for the purpose of carrying out the works by purchasing the material and execute work to the satisfaction of deceased Abdul Malik but the defendants allegedly misappropriated the same and failed to carry out the works. Allegedly, the defendants encashed the amount mentioned in 8 cheques but did not fulfil the duty assigned for which purpose the cheques were given to them.
3. Apart from it, the deceased had handed over valuable machinery and tools to the defendants at Karachi worth Rs.11,63,000. After the death of deceased Abdul Malik, respondent No.1 approached the defendants to refund the amount of the aforesaid cheques and return the tools and machinery but they kept her on false promises and on 10-11-1993 they refused to return the same. Accordingto respondent No.1, the defendants are residing at Karachi and the dealing with them was made at Karachi, hence initially she filed civil suit in this Court. However consequent upon enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, it was sent to the District Court and was re-numbered and was tried by Vlth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi Central.
4. ' The defendants contested the suit and filed joint written statement wherein they challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground of plaint having not been verified and signed by the respondent/ plaintiff, for want of cause of action and territorial jurisdiction on the ground that both the parties were residing at Multan/Muzaffargarh. They further asserted that deceased Abdul Malik got the firm registered. It was approved with WAPDA in "B" Class but he was under financial constraint due to his ill health, as such on mutual understanding the defendants having sound financial position and having experience were joined in the business as partners with equal share in the profit and loss. According to them the firm never existed at Karachi and there was no amount in the firm's bank-account except Rs.1,000, hence the issuance of such huge amount by the deceased Abdul Malik was not possible till the first running bill was passed with the personal cash investment of five lacks by the defendants for purchase of material and documents with labour and use of their entire machinery. They further stated that deceased husband of respondent No.1 visited 2 times Singapore and huge expenses were incurred. The defendants did their job devotedly, honestly and after adjusting necessary expenses, the major portion of income was utilized by the plaintiff/respondent on the treatment of deceased Abdul Malik but the defendants remained silent because he was seriously ill and ultimately died on 4-4-1994. After his death the defendants asked respondent No.1 to settle the account and share the profits but she became annoyed and filed the instant suit. As per defendants the entire machinery used for the business was owned by them except a Motorcycle Yamaha 100 CC 1981 Model. According to them, huge amount was due against the respondents which was spent on the treatment of deceased Abdul Malik.
5. ' On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and evidence of the parties was recorded and after hearing counsel for the parties, vide judgment and decree dated 18-11-2009 suit was decreed to the extent of Rs.18,37,000 with prevailing bank interest from the date of the institution of the suit along with motorcycle worth Rs.25.000. The said judgment and decree were challenged in appeal which was also dismissed, hence this civil revision.
6. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record.
7. ' Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the Judgments and Decrees passed by the two courts below are bad in law, illegal and violative of the principles enunciated by the superior courts.
8. He further contended that although in the original plaint respondent No.1 pleaded that the defendants are partners but thereafter through an amended plaint she pleaded that they were employees of deceased Abdul Malik; that the trial court did not consider at all the evidence of Project Director WAPDA Muzaffargarh. According to him, the courts below have also given erroneous findings on the point of territorial jurisdiction. He further contended that there is gross misreading and non-reading of evidence on the part of both the courts below. He prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgments and decrees.
9. ' Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the revision application 'against the concurrent findings is not maintainable. He submitted that the judgments of the two courts below are in accordance with the law and sound and cogent reasons have been assigned for passing the impugned judgments. According to him the defendants admitted in their written statement that the chques in question were given to them by the deceased husband of respondent No.1 and also admitted in cross-examination that they had encashed all the eight cheques given by deceased Abdul Malik. According to him, the applicant has not been able to furnish tangible grounds so as to warrant interference by this court in the impugned judgments and decrees. He prayed for dismissal of the revision application.
10. ' So far as the point of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, respondents' plea is that on account of ill health of respondent No.1, he along with his entire family had shifted to Karachi and also established his another office at Karachi. It was also pleaded that the 8 cheques in question were issued by the deceased Abdul Malik at Karachi, therefore cause of action accrued at Karachi. It also appears that even the defendants also own residential house in Karachi and the CNIC of the applicant shows the address of Karachi and the same address has been mentioned in the title of the plaint. Even he himself admitted that in the year 1986 he shifted to Karachi. They have also not denied that the said 8 cheques were not received by them at Karachi. In this view of the matter, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant regarding territorial jurisdiction of the two courts below.
11. ' So far as the contention that in the first instance respondent No.1 pleaded that defendants were partners of deceased Abdul Malik but subsequently in the amended plaint she took a different plea that they were employed by her deceased husband is concerned, it may' be observed that the application for amendment .Moved by respondent No.1 was allowed vide order dated 18-2-1996 and the said order was neverchallenged by the defendants. If they were aggrieved by such plea, they should have assailed the said order but they kept mum thereby B acknowledging and admitting such fact. Even otherwise the documentary evidence produced by the respondents that the deceased Abdul Malik had opened account for the firm as proprietor of Messrs Industrial Engineering Services Multan Cantt. Besides the Income Tax Assessment Order for the year 1985-86 shows that the deceased was running the firm individually under the proprietorship and the above documents have been exhibited during the evidence as Exh.5/5 and Exh.P-2/6 which apparently establish that the Industrial Engineering Services was being operated by the deceased husband of respondent No.1 and father of remaining respondents in his individual capacity. Moreover the defendants could not produce any convincing evidence to substantiate their plea that it was a partnership firm and they were partners of deceased Abdul Malik.
12. ' So far as eight cheques allegedly given by the deceased to the defendants for business purpose are concerned, the defendants in their joint written statement as well as during the evidence had admitted to have received the said cheques from the deceased. The defendants although took stand that huge amount was incurred on the treatment of serious illness of deceased husband of respondent No.1, but they could not produce any tangible evidence in this regard and no details of such expenditure were produced by them.
13. ' Yet there is another aspect of the case. It is now well settled 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 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."
14. ' In another case reported in PLD 1994 SC 291 the honourable Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact of two courts below could not be disturbed by High Court either in second appeal or in revisional jurisdiction unless Courts below while recording finding of fact had either misread the evidence or had ignored any material piece of evidence on record or the same was perverse Jurisdiction of High Court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction was narrower, it could only interfere with the order of subordinate Court on ground that Court below had assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in it, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law or that Court below had acted with material irregularity affecting its jurisdiction in the case and the High Court under revisional jurisdiction can only correct jurisdictional errors of Courts below---Fact that High Court while reappraising evidence on record reached a conclusion different from that arrived at by two courts below, such fact could never be a ground justifying interference with a finding of fact muchless a concurrent finding of fact recorded by Courts below on basis of evidence produced before them.
15. ' Upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this Revision Application which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
16. ' Above are the reasons for short order passed on 30-4-2013.