ALI BAIG, C.J. Through this single consolidated judgment, I intend to dispose of the above titled two petitions as the subject matter and controversy involved in both the cases are same and parties are also same.
2. This civil revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. has been directed by the petitioner/plaintiff namely Ali Dad against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned two Courts below vide judgment/decree dated 02-04-2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gilgit in C.F.A. No.68/2017 and judgment/decree dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Gilgit in Civil Suit No.255/2011, whereby both the Courts below have dismissed suit of the present petitioner/plaintiff.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case giving rise to the filing of the instant civil revision petition are that petitioner/plaintiff namely Ali Dad had instituted a civil suit against the respondents/defendants before the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Gilgit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the suit land bearing Khasra No.2463, Khewat No. 338/340 measuring 5 kanal 17 marla land situated at Jutial Gilgit, is joint property of three brother but the respondent/defendant No. 1 has mutated the suit land in his name in collusion with the revenue staff. The respondent/defendant No. 1 has also sold out the suit land to respondents/defendants 2 to 7 illegally. The petitioner/plaintiff has further sought permanent injunction to restrain the revenue staff from attestation of mutation to the extent of 2 kanal land out of disputed suit land.
3. The suit was contested by the present respondents/defendants by filing their respective written statements in the trial Court wherein they have raised certain legal and factual objections and denied the claim of the present petitioner/plaintiff. The respondent/defendant No.1 in his written statement filed before the trial Court has stated that he has received the suit property through hibba/gift from one namely Muhabbat Shah, therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit against the present respondents/defendants and as such the suit is not maintainable.
5. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court has framed five issues including issue of relief and after recoding pro and contra evidence and hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties, has dismissed the suit of the present petition/plaintiff, vide judgment/decree dated 31.05.2017.
6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned judgment/decree dated 31-05- 2017 passed by the learned trial Court, the present petitioner/plaintiff had preferred a civil first appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Gilgit. The learned Addl. District Judge, Gilgit after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties, has dismissed the civil first appeal of the present petitioner/plaintiff and maintained the judgment decree of the learned trial Court, vide judgment/decree dated 02.04.2019.
7. Feeling aggrieved and discontented with the aforesaid impugned judgment/decree of the learned 1st Appellate Court, Gilgit, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the instant civil revision petition before this Court.
8. During pendency of the civil revision petition, the present petitioner/plaintiff has also filed an application bearing CoC No.18/2022 under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. for initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents/contemnors 1 to 7 on the ground that this Court had granted status quo of the subject matter vide order dated 18.12.2019 and 21.06.2022, but the contemnors/respondents 2 to 7 have willfully violated the status order of this Court by developing the suit land on the spot.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff argued that the learned Courts below have not followed the provisions of law and the norms of justice, hence, the judgments/decrees of both the learned Courts below are not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff further argued that the judgments/ decrees of the learned Courts below are contrary to law and facts as such both the impugned judgments/decrees are not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff further argued that plaintiff/petitioner has proved all the issues through cogent and reliable oral as well as documentary evidence, hence the learned trial Court has wrongly dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff, and the learned 1st Appellate Court has also ignored this fact, hence both the impugned judgments/decrees are not sustainable in the eye of law and the same are liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff further submitted that the learned 1st Appellate Court has drawn wrong inference from the documents available on record and has dismissed the civil first appeal of the petitioner on flimsy grounds having no legal force, hence, the impugned judgments/decrees are liable to be set aside. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff 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 in acceptance of the instant civil revision petition.
10. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants 1 to 7 has controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff and supported the impugned judgments/decrees passed by the learned lower Courts by contending that the impugned judgments/ decrees passed by the learned Courts are result of correct appreciation of evidence and facts on record. The learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants 1 to 7 further contended that the petitioner/plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit land is joint property, hence the learned Courts below have rightly dismissed the civil suit and civil first appeal of the petitioner/plaintiff. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants 1 to 7 further contended that the suit land has been transferred to the respondent/defendant No.1 through gift/hibba from one Muhabbat Shah and the suit land is in the name of the respondent/defendant No.1 since long as per revenue record, hence the learned lower Courts have arrived at a just conclusion and have passed the impugned judgments/decrees which reflect the correct appreciation of material on record. While concluding their arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants 1 to 7 contended that the learned Courts below have rightly dismissed the civil suit and the civil first appeal of the present petitioner/plaintiff, hence both the impugned judgments/decrees may be maintained by dismissing the instant civil revision petition. In support of their arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7 have relied upon judgment reported as 2021 CLC 68.
11. The respondents 8 and 9 were not contesting party, hence they have not contested this civil revision petition.
12. 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.
13. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that the suit land fully described in the head note of the plaint was purchased jointly from one Muhabbat Shah resident of Gilgit by the present petitioner/plaintiff and present respondent/defendant No. 1 as such the suit land is joint property of petitioner and the respondent/defendant No.1 has clandestinely transferred the suit land in his name in league with respondents/ defendants Nos.8 and 9, vide mutation No.4155. In order to substantiate his claim, the petitioner/plaintiff has not produced any valid and cogent documentary evidence in the trial Court. However, the plaintiff/petitioner has produced five oral witnesses namely Nazir Ali, Muhabat Shah, Juma Wali, Muhammad Rashid and Muhammad Hussain.
14. I have gone through the statements of the above named PWs recorded before the trial Court and found that all the above named five PWs have failed to substantiate the claim of the present petitioner/ plaintiff. Rather the PW-2 namely Muhabat Shah has supported the contention of the respondent/defendant No.1 stating that he has sold out the suit to the respondent/defendant No.1 in consideration of Rs.40,000/- (forty thousand only). From perusal of statement of PW-2 who was original owner of suit property, it transpires that he had sold out suit or gifted the suit land to the respondent No. 1. He has also admitted in cross-examination that the mutation of suit land has been attested in the name of present respondent/defendant No.1 in his presence. Hence, I am of the opinion that the transaction of suit land was made between the original owner of suit land/PW- 2 namely Muhabat Shah and present respondent No.1 namely Muhammad Hussain. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his claim by producing cogent and reliable oral or documentary evidence.
15. Moreover, the Jamabandi of suit land has been prepared in the name of the present respondent/defendant No.1 in the year 2002 which has not been challenged by the plaintiff in the plaint and mutation was attested in the name of the present respondent/defendant No.1 on 27.02.1986 and the plaintiff has filed the suit in the trial Court on 02.01.2011, hence the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff is hopelessly time barred. Both the learned Courts below have arrived at just and fair conclusion while recording concurrent findings.
16. It is also settled principle of law, concurrent findings of facts cannot be upset by this Court/High Court in its revisional jurisdiction in a casual manner rather it has to be proved that the same are perverse, arbitrary or the same are based on misreading or non-reading of evidence. Findings on question of fact or law erroneous the same may be recorded by the Court of; competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, unless such findings suffer from controversial defects, illegality or material irregularity which is lacking the instant case.
17. For the reasons herein before recorded, I have come to the conclusion that the learned Courts below have properly exercised the jurisdiction vested in them and both the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are in conformity with law to which no exception can be taken and which are maintained. Resultantly the instant revision petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
18. Contempt petition bearing CoC No.18/2022 is also dismissed being meritless as the petitioner has failed to prove that the petitioner has violated any order of this court. Certified true copy of this judgment be placed on the file of CoC No.18/2022. File.