ALI BAIG, J.----Through this civil revision, petition filed under section 115, C.P.C., the petitioner/plaintif f has impugned the judgment/decree dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Ghanche in C.F.A No.09/2018, whereby the learned 1st Appellate Court has dismissed the civil first appeal of the petitioner/plaintif f by maintaining the judgment/decree passed by the learned trial Court.
2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant civil revision petition are that the petitioner/plaintif f had filed a civil suit before the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Doghoni District Ghanche to the effect that the petitioner/plaintif f is the real owner of the suit land fully described in the head note of the plaint. Defendant/present respondent contested the suit by filing his written statement and denied the averments of plaintif f on many legal and factual grounds.
3. Out of divergent pleadings of the partie s, the learned trial Court framed as many as 09 issues including the issue of relief. After pro and contra evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions and hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the present petitioner/plaintif f, vide judgment/decree dated 29.06.2018 passed in Civil Suit No.09/2016.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/decree of the learned trial Court, the present petitioner/plaintif f preferred a civil 1st appeal before the learned 1st Appellate Court District Ghanche. The learned 1st Appellate Court after procuring attend ance of the parties and hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties, dismissed the civil 1st appeal by upholding the judgment/decree passed by the learned trial Court, vide judgment/decree dated 31.08.2019.
5. The petitioner/plaintif f again felt dissatisfaction with the findings of learned District Judge, Ghanche and has filed the instant civil revision petition before this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintif f argued that the judgments/decrees of the lower Courts are contrary to law and facts of the case, hence, the impugned judgments/decrees of both Courts below are not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintif f further submitted that the learned Courts below have passed the impugned judgments/decrees in a casual and hasty manner without applying the mandate of law fairly and properly , hence, the impugned judgments/decrees are liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintif f further submitted that the learned lower Courts have failed to understand the nature and scope of the case, hence, not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner/p laintif f further argued that the judgments/decrees are result of mis-reading, non-reading and misunderstanding of evidence and material available on file. Further maintained that both the learned Courts below have ignored all the valuable evidence adduced by the petitioner/plaintif f, hence, the impugned decrees/judgments are liable to be set aside by accepting this revision petition and suit of the petitioner/plaintif f may be decreed in the interest of justice.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant controver ted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintif f and strongly defended the impugned judgments/decrees passed by the Courts below by contending that the impugned judgments/ decrees passed by the learned Courts below are result of correct appreciation of evidence/material available on file. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant further contended that a civil revision can be filed only when the learned Courts below have committed any illegality or irregularity of gross nature, whereas the petitioner/plaintif f has failed to point out any material irregularity/ illegality committed by the Courts below . The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant further contended that the petitioner/plaintif f has failed to substantiate the grounds mentioned in the revision petition, therefore, the petition in hand being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. While concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant argued that under law the petitioner/plaintif f is duty bound to prove all the issues placed on him and he cannot take any benef it from the weaknesses of the respondent/defendant.
8. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the learned coun sel for the parties and with their able assistance I have gone through the record of the case.
9. It is the case of petitioner /plaintif f that he is real owner of the suit land which was given to the respondent/defendant by fixing lagan /rent at the rate of Rs.3,000/ per kanal per annum for rendering services of Fatiha Khawani and Matamdari by the defendant /respondent till 2015.
10. To substantiate the aforesaid claim the petitioner although has produced some documentary and oral evidence in the trial court. From perusal of evidenc e produced by petitioner/plaintif f it reveals that the petitioner has failed to adduce relevant, cogent , reliable and credible evidence before the trial court rather irrelevant documents and oral evidence has been produced before the trial court. Moreover , the suit of the plaintif f /petitioner was time barred as the disputed property is in possession of defendant since 1998 and suit has been filed on 10-03-201 1, after lapse of more than 18 years of delivery of possession of suit land to respondent/defendant. The learned 1st Appellate Court as well as the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgments /decrees after proper evaluation of evidence adduced by the parties through concurrent findings.
11. It is settled principle of law that ordinarily the concurrent findings of facts are not disturbed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction unless the findings of the two courts below are totally perverse and violation of the provisions of law as well as against the material available on file. After very careful consideration of entire material on record and contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the learned 1st Appellate court has not committed any material irregularity and illegality while passing the impugn ed judgment/ decree warranting interference by this Court by exercising jurisdiction under section 1 15, C.P .C.
12. In the light of above discussion, I am fully satisfied that the claim of the plaintif f /petitioner is concocted, baseless and without substance. The petitioner/plaintif f has miserably failed to prove his case and both the courts below have rightly dismissed the suit of plaintif f, hence I feel no hesitation to dismiss this revision petition with ID no order as to costs. Consequently the impugned judgment/decree dated 31-08-2019 passed by the learned District Judge Ghanche, is maintained. File.