ALI BAIG, J.---- Through the instant ,revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C., the petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment/decree dated 26/08/2019, passed by the learned District Judge Ghanche; whereby , the learned District Judge has maintained the judgment/decree dated 18/03/2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Khaplu by dismissing the civil first appeal of the present petitioner .
2. Briefly stated facts forming the background of the instant revision petition are that the present petitioner/plaintif f, (hereinafter called as petitioner), filed a suit in the court of learned Senior Civil Judge Khaplu against the present respondents/defendants, (hereinafter called as respondents), claiming therein that he is owner of the suit land fully described in the heading of the plaint measuring 3 marlas situated at village Garbo Chung Khaplu and 6 cattle sheds constructed thereon on the basis of sale deed dated 16/03/2004 and the respondent No.1 has been in possession of cattle sheds as tenant. The respondent No.1 is reluctant to hand over the disputed land and cattle sheds claiming his own title over the suit land with the collusion of respondents Nos.2 and 3.
3. The respondents contested the suit by filing written statement in the trial court raising certain legal objections and repudiating the averments of plaint.
4. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court has framed as many as 10 issues including the issue of relief:
5. After recording evidence of the parties and on conclusion of trial, the learned trial court has dismissed the suit of the present petitioner vide judgment/decree dated 18/03/2019.
6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of the learned trial court, the petitioner had filed civil first appeal in the court of District Judge Ghanche which was also dismissed by the learned first appellate court vide the impugned judgment/decree dated 26/08/2019, hence this revision petition.
7. Preliminary arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner heard at length and record also perused.
8. Perusal of record transpires that the learned trial court after recording of evidence of the parties and hearing final arguments on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the suit of petitioner .
9. I have also gone through the judgments passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned First Appellate Court. From perusal of impugned judgments passed by both the courts below , it reveals that both the courts below have passed the judgments after proper evaluating of oral and documentary evidence of parties and appreciating of relevant law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any mis-reading and non- reading of evidence of both the courts below nor any material irregularity or illegality have been committed by both the courts below while passing the judgments/orders.
10. It is well settled principle of law that scope of appeal is wider than revision. The revisional jurisdiction is supervisory jurisdiction. The High Court/Chief Court in exercise of powers under Section 115, C.P.C. can only interfere when courts below have failed to exercise their jurisdiction so vested or exceed their jurisdiction or committed material irregularity or illegality .
11. Revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised even when the findings are errone ous or wrong. High Court/Chief Court by exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot disturb concurrent findings arrived at by the courts below in proper exercising of jurisdiction vested in the courts upon proper appreciation of evidence on the record. The concurrent findings could only be disturbed by this Court if it is found to be perverse and forceful which is lacking in the instant case.
12. For what has been discussed above, this revision petition having no substance is hereby dismissed in limine.
Parties are left to bear their own costs. Civil Micellaneous No.60/2019 is also disposed of accordingly . File.