ALI BAIG, J.---This writ petition under Article 71(2) of Gilgit Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order , 2009 has been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned judgment/order dated 29-9-2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, whereby the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gilgit has dismissed civil revision petition of the present petitioner/defendant and has maintained judgment/order dated 30.9.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Gilgit.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are that the present respondents Nos. 1 to 5/plaintif fs (here- in-after called as respondents Nos. 1 to 5) had filed suit against the present petitioner and some other person (here-in-after called the petitioner) in the court of learned Civil Judge Hunza camp at Gilgit for cancellation of a power of attorney dated 20-12-2009 which was fraudulently obtained by the present respondents and other defendants.
3. During pendency of suit, the present petitioner filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. in the 1st Appellate Court on the ground that since the disputed house is situated at Islamabad and transaction of the disputed house was made at Islamabad, therefore, the civil Court at Hunza Gilgit-Baltistan has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter , therefore, the suit filed by the present respondents No. 1 to 5 is not maintainable and liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 1 1, C. P . C.
4. The respondents Nos.1 to 5 contested the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner by filing reply to the said application. The learned trial court after hearing arguments on the aforesaid application on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the same vide order dated 30-04-2016.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment/order of the trial court, the petitioner had filed a civil revision petition in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gilgit which was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment dated 29-09-2019, hence this writ petition.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gilgit is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case, as such the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gilgit is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the disputed house is situated at Islamabad and the petitioner has filed a civil suit for specific performance of agreement and permanent injunction in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad which is pending adjudication before the learned trial court at Islamabad, therefore, Civil Court at Gilgit/Hunza lacks jurisdiction to entertain suit of the respondents Nos.1 to 5, therefore, by accepting this writ petition, the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gilgit may be set aside and suit of respondents Nos.1 to 5 may be rejected under Order VII, Rule 1 1, C .P .C.
7. Conversely , the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 5 controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned judgments/orders passed by both the lower courts by contending that the present responden ts Nos.1 to 5 have filed suit for declaration and cancellation of power of attorney which was fraudulently obtained by the petitioners and other defendants. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 5 further argued that the power of attorney was executed at Hunza, therefore, the Civil Court at Hunza has territorial jurisdiction to entertain suit of the respondents Nos.1 to 5 and both the learned courts below have rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 1 1, C.P .C. which may be maintained.
8. We have heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, have perused the record.
9. Perusal of record would reveal that the disputed power of attorney was admittedly executed at Hunza. Marginal witnesses of said power of attorney also belong to Hunza. The disputed power of attorney has also been registered at Aliabad Hunza, therefore, the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Hunza has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter/suit of the respondents Nos.1 to 5. Moreover , from perusal of record it transpires that both the courts below have concurrently dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C.
Thus, concurrent findings of facts and law by both the courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and law which could not be interfered by this court by invoking its writ jurisdiction.
10. In view of what has been discussed above, we do not find any irregularity and illegality in the concurrent findings of both the courts below , thus this writ petition having to merit and substance is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Resultantly , the impugned judgment/ order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gilgit is maintained. File.