SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J. Precisely, the petitioner/plaintiff, allegedly being bona fide purchaser, instituted a suit for specific performance against the respondents Nos.1 to 3 on the basis of agreement to sell dated 19.09.2005. During the proceedings, the respondents Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the learned trial Court and recorded their statements to the effect that they had no objection on decreeing the suit in favour of the petitioner, whereas the respondent No.3 submitted his written statement while confirming the sale of the suit property to the respondent No.2, from whom the respondent No.1 purchased the suit property and agreed to sell the same to the petitioner vide agreement to sell dated 19.09.2005. However, the present respondent No.4 filed an application under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for impleading him as defendant, which application was accepted and the petitioner submitted amended plaint in this regard. The respondent No.4 submitted his written statement and it transpired that the said respondent No.4 got executed a sale deed in his favour allegedly during pendency of the suit, therefore, the petitioner moved an application under Order VI, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment in the plaint to the effect that sale deed No.745 dated 15.12.2005 in favour of respondent No.4 may be declared null and void; the said application was accepted and the petitioner filed second amended plaint. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 23.02.2012 dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff and appeal thereagainst also met with the same fate vide impugned judgment and decree dated 19.12.2012.
Hence, the instant civil revision.
2. Heard.
3. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner derived his alleged right from the respondent No.1 as he entered into agreement to sell with him (respondent No.1) but he could not bring on record any document showing ownership of the respondent No.1 with regards to the suit property, thus, when a person has no title with regards to the suit property, how can he enter into an agreement or transfer such property. When the position is as such, in presence of registered sale deed in favour of the respondent No.4 (Ex.D1) and mutation (Ex.D2), the status of the petitioner is nothing but an alien to the suit property. No evidence with regards to alleged fraud in respect of execution of registered sale deed (Ex.D1) has been brought on record by the petitioner. Therefore, both the learned Courts have evaluated evidence in true perspective and have reached to a just conclusion, concurrently and as such concurrent findings on facts cannot be disturbed when the same do not suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence, howsoever erroneous in exercise of revisional jurisdiction; reliance is placed on Muhammad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others (2017 SCMR 679), Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469), Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Gantt. Board Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCMR 161), Muhammad Sarwar and others v. Hashmal Khan and others (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 13) and Mst. Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 21), wherein it has been held:-- 'There is a difference between the misreading, non-reading and misappreciation of the evidence therefore, the scope of the appellate and revisional jurisdiction must not be confused and care must be taken for interference in revisional jurisdiction only in the cases in which the order passed or a judgment rendered by a subordinate Court is found perverse or suffering from a jurisdictional error or the defect of misreading or non-reading of evidence and conclusion drawn is contrary to law.
However, in the present case, no such occasion has arisen showing any jurisdictional error or defect of misreading and non-reading of evidence on record as well as conclusion drawn is contrary to law rather the finding recorded by the learned Courts below are upto the dexterity after minute discussion of the evidence, oral as well as documentary. Thus, the impugned judgments and decrees do not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4. For the foregoing reasons, no illegality and irregularity has been committed, rather vested jurisdiction has, aptly and justly been exercised by the learned Courts below; therefore, while placing reliance on the judgments supra the civil revision in hand being devoid of any force and substance stands dismissed. No order as to the costs.