ALI BAIG, J.---This civil revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. has been preferred against the impugned judgment/decree dated 27-8-2015 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge Gilgit, whereby the learned 1st Appellate Court has dismissed civil first appeal of the present petitioner/plaintif f and has maintained the judgment/decree dated 31.5.2002 passed by the learned trial court.
2. Succinctly facts necessary for disposal of the instant civil revision petition are that the present petitioner/ plaintif f instituted a suit for declaration and possession of suit property fully described in the heading of plaint against the respondents /defendants in the trial court claiming that the present petitioner/ plaintif f was exclusive owner of suit property/house, which was given to the respondent/defendant No.1 for his residence temporarily as the respondent/ defendant No.1 is first cousin of the present petitioner/plaintif f and he had no residential house at village Nomal, Gilgit. Respondent/defendant No.1 later on refused to hand over the suit property to the present petitioner/plaintif f which is illegal and against the vested rights of the present petitioner/plaintif f.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of this revision petition the petitioner/plaintif f has expired, therefore, his L.Rs. have been impleaded/inserted as respondents in heading of petition vide order of this court dated 29-2-2019.
4. The respondent No. 1 being contesting defendant in the suit resisted the suit by filing his written statement in the learned trial court, wherein he has raised certain legal objections and has also repudiated the averments of plaint.
5. On the basis of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court has framed as many as 10 issues including issue of relief.
6. After framing of issues, the learned trial court directed the parties to produce their evidence as they wished to adduce. Accordingly , the present petitioner/ plaintif f has produced two oral witnesses besides recording of his own statement in support of his claim in the trial court. The present petitioner/plaintif f has also produced some documentary evidence Exh. P/1 to Exh.P/3.
7. The respondent/defendant No.1 has produced five oral witnesses besides record ing of his own statement before the trial court and has produced Exh. D/1 as documentary evidence along with his written statement. The present petitioner/ plaintif f has not produced any evidence in rebuttal. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial court after hearing arguments on behalf of the parties had dismissed the suit of the present petitioner/plaintif f vide the judgment/ decree dated 31-5-2002.
8. Feeling aggrieved and discontented with the aforesaid judgment of trial court the present petitioner/ plaintif f had filed civil first appeal in the court of the learned Addl. District Judge Gilgit, which was also dismissed by the learned 1st Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment/decree dated 27.8.2015, hence this revision petition.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/plaintif f contended that the impugned judgment/ decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gilgit is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case, as such the impugned judgment/decree is not maintainable and 'liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintif f further argued that the impugned judgments/decrees passed by the learned Ist Appellate Court as well as trial court are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence of the parties, hence the impugned judgments/ decrees of both the courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintif f further argued that both courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence and relevant provisions of law while passing the impugned judgments/decrees, hence by accepting this revision petition the impugned judgments/ decrees passed by both the learned courts below may be set aside and suit of the present petitioner/ plaintif f may be decreed in his favour .
10. Conversely , the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the present petitioner/plaintif f and supported the impugned judgments passed by the learned Ist Appellate Court as well as trial court by contending that the learned courts below have rightly dismissed the suit of the present petitioner/plaintif f by proper , evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further argued that the present petitioner/plaintif f has failed to prove his claim by adducing cogent, credible and unimpeachable evidence in the trial court, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the suit of the present petitioner/plaintif f and the learned Ist Appellate Court has also rightly dismissed the civil first appeal of the present petitioner/plaintif f vide the impugned judgment/decree which may be maintained.
11. I have heard the -arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the record with their able assistance.
12. It is the case/claim of the petitioner/plaintif f that the petitioner/ plaintif f is exclusive owner of suit property , which was bought by him from one Sheikh Muhammad Din resident of Nomal vide registered sale deed dated 10.02.1970 Exh.P/1 and the said suit property was given to the respondent No.1/defendant as "Amanat/temporarily " as the respondent/defendant No.1 had no personal dwelling house at Nomal, but later on the respondent/defendant No.1 denied/refused to hand over suit property to the present petitioner/plaintif f.
13. Whereas, the respondent/ defendant No.1 has taken the plea that the suit property , a jeep and other landed property situated at Nomal were commonly/jointly purchased by the contesting parties i.e. plaintif f and defendant No.1 from their common earrings as they were residing together and during partition the disputed property was given to the respondent /defendant No.1 and a jeep along with some piece of land situated at Khari Nomal were given to the present petitioner/plaintif f. The present petitioner/plaintif f in order to substantiate his claim has produced two PWs namely Abdul Qasim and Jafar Ali, Halqa Patwari. P.W No.1 who is son of Sheikh Muhammad Din has stated in his statement recorded before the trial court that initially the suit house and land were owned by his father and his father has sold-out the same to the present petitioner/plaintif f in the year 1969 in consideration of Rs.6,500/- and suit property was alienated in the name of the present petitioner/ plaintif f through registered sale deed Exh-P/1. P.W-2 namely Jaffar Hussain has stated in his statement recorded before the trial court, that he has brought register of mutations and as per mutation No.2206, the suit property has been transferred in the name of petitioner/plain tiff, but the above named P.Ws have no knowledge regarding common dwelling/residing of the petitioner/plaintif f and respondent/ defendant No.1 and dispute between the parties.
Whereas, the present respondent/defend ant No.1 has produced five oral witnesses in support of his version/plea.
D.W-1 namely Syed Abdullah Shah, D.W.2 Safdar Shah and D.W-3 namely Muhammad Dinar who is also real brother of the present petitioner/plaintif f have fully supported the version of respondent/ defendant No.1 i.e. the partition of common properties including suit property between the parties.
14. I have minutely gone through entire evidence produced by both the parties and after careful perusal of evidence adduced by the contesting parties, I have come to the conclusion that the present petitioner/plaintif f has miserably failed to prove his case/cla im by adducing cogent and unimpeac hable evidence, whereas, the respondent/ defendant No.1 has fully proved his version/claim by adducing reliable and unimpeachable oral evidence before the learned trial court, thus, both the learned courts below after proper evaluating evidence of the parties have arrived at right and just conclusion. Revisional powers under section 115, C.P.C. of this court are limited and can only be exercised when the petitioner/plaintif f succeed in establishing that the judgments of courts below suffer from legal infirmities hedged section 115, C.P.C. or revisional jurisdiction can only be invoked if some patent illegality is floating on the surface of record. No illegality or irregularity has been pointed out in the judgments/decrees passed by both the courts below calling for any interference by this court in its revisional jurisdiction.
15. The nutshell of above discussion is that this revision petition having no merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. File.