MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, CJ.----The instant Revision Petition is direc ted by the Petitioner against the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the learned two Courts below vide their judgments and decrees dated 17-10-2019 and 25-9-2018 respectively , whereby the application of petitioners filed under section 47 read with section 151, C.P.C., was dismissed by both the lower Courts.
2. Pithily , the facts of the case are that the present respondent No.1 had instituted a civil suit before the learned Civil Judge Punial/Ishkoman against the present petitioner and present respondents Nos. 2 to 4 for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that plaintif f is exclusive owner and in possession of suit land measuring 15 Kanal 11 Marlas situated at Baktali Khalti adjacent to Yasin river District Ghizar in the light of allotment order bearing No. DK-15/ 1298-99/ 1978 dated 20-02-1977 issued by the Resident Commissioner Gilgit. The trial Court after completion of proceedings in the said suit decreed the suit in favour of the present respondent No.1/ plaintif f against the present petitioner and respondents Nos.2 to 4 vide judgment/ decree dated 31-8-2015.
Being dis-satisfied with the said judgment/decree present petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned District Judge Ghizar . The learned District Judge Ghizar after hearing the parties converted the revision petition into an appeal and dismissed the same as time barred vide judgment/ decree dated 24-03-2016.
3. After that the present petitioner remained silent and did not bother to challenge the judgment/ decree passed by the learned-District Judge Ghizar and the said judgment/ decree of the learned District Judge Ghizar gained finality .
4. On 06-04-2016 present petitioner had filed an application under section 47 read with section 151, C.P.C. before the learned trial Court by contending that respondent No.1/ decree-holder is bent upon to occupy the land known as Dewan Nakh instead of land called as Baktali on the basis of decree dated 13-8-2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Punial/Ishkoman in Civil Suit No.44/ 2012 and judgment/ decree dated 24-3-2016 passed by the learned District Judge Ghizar , therefore, respondent No.1/ decree holder may be restrained from interference in the land known as Dewan Nakh and the judgment/ decree passed by the both Court are liable to be set aside. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties in the light of material available on record dismissed the application filed by the present petitioner under section 47 read with section 151, C.P .C., vide judgment/ order dated 25-9-2018.
Being dis-content with the impugned judgment/order dated 25-9-2018 passed by the learned trial Court present Petitioner preferred Civil first Appeal befor e the learned District Judge Ghizar , which also met the same fate, hence, the petitioner has filed the instant Civil Revision before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the judgments/order of learned Courts below are against the facts and record of the case hence, the judgments/ orders of both the learned. Courts are not maintainable. He submitted that both the judgments are based on mistaken of facts, disclosed in the previous round of litigation because in the previous litigation there was no detail discussion had been made properly in the light of record available on tile, therefore, both the judgments are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed being incompetent in the present shape but the learned Courts below have wrongly dismissed the application of the petitioner , hence, not maintainable and liable to be set aside. He contended that respondent No.1 has failed to prove the issues placed on him, therefore, the suit is wron gly decreed which is liable to be dismisse d. He further submitted that the judgments/orders of learned courts below are the result of non-reading and misreading of evidence and facts on record, hence, the impugned judgments/ orders are liable to be set aside. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the concurrent findings of the learned courts below are result of misreading and non- reading of evidence, therefore, the judgme nts/ orders of the courts below are liable to be set aside in acceptance of the instant Civil Revision.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has strongly defended the judgments/ orders of the learned lower courts by asserting that the judgments/ orders passed by the learned Courts below are result of correct appreciation of law and facts on record, hence, the instant petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that in the previous litigation the plaintif f/ respondent No.1 has proved his claim by producing cogent oral as well as documentary evidence and has succeeded to bring suit home, but the petitioner has failed to rebut the same and the learned Courts below have rightly decreed the suit. He submitted that petitioner has failed to file any revision or appeal before the Hon'ble Chief Court against the judgments/decrees of the learned Courts below and the judgments/decrees of the learned Courts have attained finality . He contended that dispute between the parties have been decided by the competent Courts and the first round of litigation between the parties has been completed. He further submitted that respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are custodians of the State land who have submitted conceded written statement in favor of the respondent in the previous round of litigation. He further submitted that petition filed under section 47, C.P.C., is not competent and the learned courts below have rightly dismissed the same in the light of materials available on file, therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Parties and have also perused the record available on file.
8. It is admitted position in the case that present respondent No.1 had instituted a Civil Suit against the present petitioner and present respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and in the said suit the responden ts/defendants Nos. 2 to 4 being custodians. of State! Khalisa lands have submitted their admissional, written statement in favour of the present respondent No.1 and accepted the allotment order in favour of the present respondent No.1. The present respondent No.1 had proved his suit and succeeded to obtain a decree in his favour after a long litigation. The petitioner has failed to file any appeal or revision before this Court against the judgments/ decrees of the learned courts below , as such the judgment/ decrees of Courts below have gained finality . The judgment/ order of the learned District Judge Ghizar is well reasoned and is result of correct appreciation of law and material available on file. Para No.6 is very relevant, which is reproduced as under: "6. I have attended the arguments and gone through the record with due care. The initial suit has been decreed in favour of the respondent No.1. In the said suit issue No.10 has been framed as follows: "10. Whether the land named "Pewan Nakh" is separate from the land called "Bakatili" and it is irrigated from the water of river Yasin? OPD"
This issue has been decided by the trial court in negative. The appellants were supposed to challenge said judgment through a regular appeal before the appellate forum within the statutory limitation period. But they have failed to do so. Subsequently the appellants have filed a revision petition against the said impugned judgment. The said revision petitioner after being converted into appeal has been dismissed by this court. The appellants instead of challenging the order of this court before Hon'ble Chief Court, have went back to the trial court with a petition under section 47, C.P.C. agitating the same matter which has already been decided by the trial court in issue No.10 of the suit. By this way the appellants are attempting to cure the mistake they have committed in their omission to file an appeal against the impugned decree within the limitation period. But this attempt is bound to fail as sleeping of the appellants and their failure to file the appeal within statutory period is incurable. Their appeals have been already dismissed by this court. The proper course to be adopted by the appellants was to challenge the said judgment before Hon'ble Chief Court. But they have adopted a different way of filing a petition under section 47, C.P.C. before the trial court. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the said petition as it was not maintainable".
In the circumstances, the question of title is no longer disputed between the parties as' the declaration sought by the respondent No. 1/plaintif f has, therefore, been properly granted by the learned courts below during the first round of litigation and the judgments/decrees passed by learned both courts below have gained finality as the petitioner has not challenged the same before this Court. The point raised by the petitioner in the present petition has already been decided against the Petitioner in the suit as well as in the civil first appeal, therefore, the present petition in the present form is not compet ent. Further that the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any legal infirmity and also could not raise any point of law which may persuade this court to upset the findings of the learned Courts below . This Court has very limited jurisdiction to disturb the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the courts below , unless it is proved that the same suffered from any jurisdictional defect/ error or were based on misreading or non-reading of materials available on file which elements are conspicuously lacking in the present civil revision petition.
9. The nutshell of the above discussion is that, the instant petition has no merit, hence, dismissed by upholding the judgments/orders of the learned two Courts below . Parties to bear their own cost.
10. Civil revision bearing No.210/ 2019, Civil Miscellaneous No.671/2019 and Civil Miscellaneous bearing No.565/2020 are disposed of accordingly . File after due completion be consigned to record.