The instant revision petition under Section 115, of the CPC, is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 28.06.2013, passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Sialkot, and the judgment and decree, dated 12.04.2016, passed by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot, whereby the petitioners' suit, against Respondent No. 1, for possession, in respect of the land in dispute, after demolition of the super-structure raised thereon and perpetual injunction, has been concurrently dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in dispute, fully described in Para-1 of the petition, is owned by the petitioners and the pro forma Respondents No. 2 to 5. However , since the pro forma respondents refused to join the petitioners, therefore, they were impleaded as pro forma defendants/ respondents.
3. Further submits that Respondent No. 1 has illegally occupied the land in dispute. The petitioners were able to establish this fact on the record. However , the learned Courts below by misreading and non-reading of the evidence have dismissed the petitioners' suit.
4. Further submits that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate that Respondent No. 1 had taken over the possession of the land in dispute without the petitioners' permission and has raised illegal construction thereon.
The possession of the land in dispute is liable to be restored to the petitioners after demolition of the illegal construction raised thereon by Respondent No. 1.
5. Lastly submits that the impugned judgments and decrees have been passed against the facts and law of the case.
6. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 supports the impugned judgments and decrees. Submits that the- parties are closely related to each other . Over the years the parcels of land owned by them have undergone several changes. The land in dispute was exchanged by Respondent No. l's brother namely , Riaz with the pro forma Respondent No. 3. Refers to Exh.D.1 and Exh.D'.2. Further submits that Petitioner No. 1 admitted as much during his cross-examination whilst appearing as PW-1. The petitioners' suit is, therefore, based upon a false premise. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the so called exchange was reversed. Refers to Exh.P .1 to Exh.P .4 in support of his contention.
8. Heard. Record perused.
9. Admittedly , it is a case of concurrent findings of fact. I further find that the learned Courts below have non-suited the petitioners on the basis of the admission made by Petitioner No. 1 during his cross-examination whilst appearing as PW-J . I have gone throug h the evidence of the petitioner (PW-1) and find that he conceded the respondent's case and even accused the pro forma Respondent No 3 of jeopardizing the petitioners' suit by entering into the transaction of exchange /sale in respect of the land in dispute. The learned Courts below have non-suited the petitioners on this ground. The learned counsel for the petitioners has been unable to establish otherwise from the record.
10. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the petitioners has been unable to establish any other ground warranting interference by this Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, in the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the learned Courts below .
11. Under the circumstances, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
There is no order as to costs.