ALI BAIG, C.J. The instant civil revision petition is directed by the petitioners/defendants against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned two Courts below vide judgment/decree dated 09-04-2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Nagar and judgment/decree dated 08.06.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Nagar, whereby the learned 1st Appellate Court Nagar has maintained the judgment/decree of the learned trial Court by dismissing the civil first appeal with costs filed by the present petitioners.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case giving rise to the filing of the instant Civil Revision Petition are that Respondents 1 to 4 being plaintiffs in the trial Court, had instituted a civil suit against the Petitioners/Defendants before the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Nagar for declaration and permanent injunction with the contention that they are owners of suit land fully described in the head note of plaint.
3. The suit was hotly contested by the present petitioners/ defendants by filing their written statement wherein they have raised certain legal and factual objections and denied the claim/plea of the present respondents/plaintiffs, while the rest of the defendants/ respondents have not filed any written statement as they were proceeded ex-parte during trial of the suit on different dates.
4. The learned trial Court out of the divergent pleadings of the parties has framed nine issues including the issue of relief and after amendment of suit the learned trial Court has also framed two additional issues. The learned trial Court after recoding pro and contra evidence of the contesting parties as they wished to adduce and hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties, has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 4, vide judgment/ decree dated 08.06.2021.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned judgment/decree dated 08-06- 2021 passed by the learned trial Court, the present petitioners had preferred a civil first appeal bearing No.37/2021 before the learned District Judge Nagar. The learned District Judge Nagar/1st Appellate Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties, has dismissed the civil first appeal of the present petitioners with costs and maintained the judgment/decree of the learned trial Court, vide judgment/decree dated 09.04.2022.
6. Feeling aggrieved and discontented with the said impugned judgment of the learned 1st Appellate Court, the present petitioners/defendants have filed the instant civil revision petition before this Court.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants argued that the learned Courts below have not followed the provisions of law and procedure, hence, the judgments/decrees of both the learned Courts are not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants further argued that the suit of plaintiffs/ respondents was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as the matter pertains to compensation amount, but the learned Courts below have wrongly decreed the suit, hence, the impugned judgments/decrees of both the learned Courts below are not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants further argued that plaintiffs/respondents have failed to prove their issues, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners/ defendants further submitted that the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents is clearly time barred and the learned courts below have wrongly decreed the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the suit land is in possession of the petitioners since the regime of Raja Nagar, and the petitioners are sole owners of the suit land, hence both the learned Courts below have arrived at a wrong conclusion as such both the judgments/decrees are not tenable and liable to be set aside.
The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the suit land belongs to the public of village Pissan, therefore, the revenue authorities have prepared compensation in the name of Awam-e-Pissan. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants contended that the concurrent findings of the learned courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence, therefore, the judgments/decrees of the courts below are liable to be set aside by accepting the instant civil revision petition.
8. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners/defendants and supported the impugned judgments/decrees passed by the learned lower courts and contended that the judgments/decrees passed by the learned Courts are result of correct appreciation of evidence and facts on record. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs further contended that Plaintiffs/ respondents have proved all the issues which were to be proved by them through reliable and trustworthy oral and documentary evidence, therefore, plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 4 are owners of suit land and are entitled to get compensation amount. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs further submitted that the learned Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of defendants/respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs further submitted that the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 4 are real owners of the suit land, therefore, their right over the suit property is undeniable and established. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs further submitted that the instant revision petition is not maintainable, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed to meet the ends of justice.
9. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents 5 to 7 contended that the suit land is khalisa sarkar land, hence both the private parties have no right of ownership on the suit land, as such the impugned judgments/decrees are not maintainable and liable to the set aside. The learned Addl. Advocate General further argued that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment by amending the suit and no opportunity has been afforded to the respondents 5 to 7 to prove their stance, as such the impugned judgments/decrees of both the learned courts below are liable to be set aside. The learned Additional Advocate General further argued that the case may be remanded back to the learned trial Court for trial afresh to meet the ends of justice.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record available on file with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties".
12. (sic.) It is case of the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are bona fide owners in possession of suit land fully described in the head note of the plaint, but the present petitioner/defendant No.1 is interfering in the suit land and is bent upon to take possession of suit land, therefore, the plaintiffs have prayed that the defendants/petitioners may be restrained from interfering in the suit land permanently. In order to substantiate their claim, the respondents No.1/Plaintiffs have produced three oral witnesses namely (1) Shaikh Ali Haider son of Abdullah Shah, (2) Khair Ullah son of Ali Muhammad and (3) Sher Alam son of Kumail, all residents of village Pissan Nagar.
13. I meticulously examined/perused statements of above named PWs and found that they are also residents of village Pissan and the present petitioners are also residents of village Pissan Nagar.
The above named PWs have unequivocally stated in their statements recorded before the learned trial Court that the present respondents No.1/plaintiffs are owners of suit land and they had taken stones with the permission of plaintiffs from the disputed land for construction of different projects.
The learned counsel for the present petitioners/defendants has not been able to shatter the statements of the above named PWs by putting questions to the PWs in cross examination.
14. Moreover, the defendants/present petitioners have failed to produce impartial reliable oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their contentions raised in their written statements.
Thus I am of the firm view that both the learned Courts below have arrived at a correct and fair conclusion and have decided the matter in favour of respondents No.1/plaintiffs concurrently on the basis of proper appreciate of evidence on record.
15. It is settled principle of law that concurrent findings of the learned Courts below cannot be interfered with under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court/High Court.
16. So far as concurrent findings of the Courts below are concerned, normally the same are not interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. However, if the Courts below have committed error of law, which has caused grave injustice resulting in the miscarriage of justice itself, then the High Court does interfere while sitting in its revisional jurisdiction. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out that the learned Courts below have committed grave error in law while passing the impugned judgments/decrees. The findings of both the Courts below on facts and questions of law were concurrent, no misreading or non-reading of evidence was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
17. It is also settled principle of law that where findings of trial Court and lower appellate Court were concurrent, how erroneous these findings could not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. unless such findings suffer from jurisdictional defect. Reliance in this respect is placed on reported judgments of superior Court reported as 2020 CLC 813, 2007 SCMR 870, 2009 SCM R 286 and PLD 2005 SC 418.
18. In the light of what has been discussed above, this revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Consequently, the impugned judgment/decree dated 09.04.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Nagar is maintained.
19. Record and proceedings of trial Court along with certified true copy of this judgment be remitted back forthwith. File