Kh. Muhammad Nasim, J. The captioned appeal leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 25.03.2019, whereby, the appeal filed by the appellants, herein, has been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the plaintiffs, Muzaffar Khan and others, predecessors-in-interest of the appellants, herein, filed a suit for declaration against Sain and others, defendants/predecessors-in-interest of respondents, herein, in the Court of Additional Sub- Judge Kotli, on 18.08.1982, by stating therein that the land comprising Khewat No. 1, Khata No. 2/2, Survey No. 318 old, measuring 66 kanal, new Survey Nos.1110, 1110/1, 1125, Khewat No. 1, khata No. 4/5, Khewat No. 83, Khata No. 370/534, measuring 40 Kanal, 5 marla situated in Mozia Darkot, Tehsil and District Kotli is in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs from their ancestors time. It was stated that Defendants Nos. 1 to 3, were "Ghair Moroosi" cultivators and have been entered in the revenue record as such with the consent of the plaintiffs. It was alleged that the said defendants without the knowledge of plaintiffs, with the connivance of the revenue officials, fictitiously got attested Mutation No. 3, in respect of the suit land in their names. It was further alleged that the aforesaid mutation is void as the same has been attested against law, the facts and without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. It was further stated that Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are entered as "Ghair Moroosi" possessors over the suit land comprising Survey Nos. 1140, 1110/1, 1125, measuring 8 Kanal, 11 marla, whereas the plaintiffs were entered as co-sharers/ owners in the land comprising Survey No. 1112, measuring 8 kanal, 11 marla but during the settlement, the situation has been changed illegally and Survey No. 1112 has been shown as the part of old Survey No. 38, whereas, actually, the Survey Nos. 1110/1, 1135 measuring 6 kanal, 7 marla is the part of old Survey No. 318, and the said entry has been made with mala fide intention against the rights of plaintiffs which is liable to be corrected.
The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement in which the whole claim of the plaintiffs was refuted and it was stated that the plaintiffs have no cause of action as the suit land was in the ownership of grandfather of the defendants and the father of defendants had transferred no land to any person.
Another suit was filed by Sain Khan, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, herein, in respect of the suit land comprising Survey No. 1112, against Muzaffar Khan and others before the same Court on 02.09.1982, with the version that land comprising Survey No. 318 measuring 66 kanal, 17 marla situated in village Darkot, Tehsil Kotli was in the ownership of the father of the defendants, who alienated his right of occupancy in favor of the father of the plaintiff through an oral sale, in consideration of Rs.800/- and mutation in this regard was attested on 29.04.1951. It was stated that new Survey Nos. 1110, 1112 were marked during settlement. Later on, under the Land Reforms Act, Mutation No. 15 was attested in favour of the father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff, is the owner of the suit land, however, the defendants remained in possession of the land comprising Survey No. 1112 (new) measuring 8 Kanal, 11 marla without knowledge of the plaintiff-respondents, herein, who got the knowledge before institution of the suit. This suit was also resisted by the other side by filing written statement.
The trial Court consolidated both the suits and after necessary proceedings dismissed the suit filed by Muzaffar Khan and others whereas in the counter suit, passed a decree for possession (Khas) in respect of the land comprising Survey No. 1112, measuring 8 kanal, 11 marla, situated in Mozia Darkot in favour of Sain Khan and others and against the defendants, Muzaffar Khan and others vide judgment and decree dated 30.07.1987. Feeling aggrieved from the said judgment and decree dated 30.07.1987, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs-appellants, herein, filed an appeal before District Judge Roth on 29.08.1987, which also met the same fate vide judgment dated 20.03.2004.
Against the said judgment and decree, the appellants, herein, filed an appeal before the High Court. The learned High Court after necessary proceedings has also dismissed the appeal through the impugned judgment, hence, this appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Sardar Abdul Hameed Khan, the learned Advocate, representing the appellants argued the case at some length and almost reiterated the same grounds as incorporated in the memo of appeal. In support of his submission, the learned Advocate, referred to and relied upon the cases reported as [PLD 1953 AJK 13], [PLD 1984 Karachi 97], [PLD 1992 AJK 29] and [PLD 2013 SC (AJ&K) 13].
During the course of arguments, it transpired that the certified copies of the impugned judgment, annexed with the present appeal have been obtained by the appellants, through Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate, who is neither the party in the appeal before this Court nor the counsel for the appellants. When this position was confronted to the learned Advocate, representing the appellants, he admitted the factual position, however, prayed for decision of the case on merit.
4. Conversely, Mr. Abdul Rashid Abbasi, the learned Advocate, representing the respondents, submitted that the appeal is incompetent being filed in violation of Rule 3 of Order XIII, of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, hence, is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground. In support of, his submission, he referred to and relied upon the recent judgment of this Court, delivered in the case titled Raja Bashir Khan vs. Raja Zafar Khan and another (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2020, decided on 28.10.2022) and the case reported as Muhammad Seemab Khan Abhasi vs. AJ&K PSC & 9 others [2022 SCR 552]. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. We have considered the arguments of the learned Advocates, representing the parties and gone through the record made available along with the impugned judgment. Before going into the merits of the case, it may be observed here that under Order XIII, Rule 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, a party filing the petition for leave to appeal is required to file four copies of the petition for leave to appeal accompanied by the judgment/order appealed from and the other relevant documents and the copies of such documents shag be obtained in his/her name by himself/herself or through the recognized attorney/agent, who may be even an Advocate, if he is duly appointed prior to the filing of petition for Nave to appeal. In the instant case, the PLA/appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants by Sardar Abdul 'Hameed Khan, Advocate, whereas, the copy of the impugned judgment has been obtained by Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate, who is alien to the proceedings before this Court. The copy of the impugned judgment obtained in the name of or through any other person may be utilized for any other purpose, except to agitate the cause before the appellate forum. It is consistent view of this Courts that when law provides doing of a particular thing in a particular way, all other modes of doing it are prohibited. While dealing with an identical proposition, this Court in the case reported as Azad Govt. and another vs. Mujahid Russian Naqvi [2002 SCR 302] observed as under: "Rule 3 of Order XIII postulates that the petitioner shall lodge at least four copies of his petition for leave to appeal and the judgment and order, sought to be appealed from together with grounds of appeal or the application before the High Court but in the instant case the Government or none of its representatives lodged their petition for leave to appeal, along with the judgment sought to be appealed from as the copy of the judgment or order sought to be appealed from shows that it was obtained by one Syed Zahoor-ul-Hassan Gillani who appears to be totally alien to the proceedings in question."
The same view has been reiterated by this Court in a case titled AJ&K Government and 2 others vs. Abdul. Salam Butt and 3 others reported as [2003 SCR 287], whereby it was observed as under: "... Under Order XIII, Rule 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, a petition for leave to appeal is required to be accompanied by the judgment and order sought to be appealed from together with the grounds of appeal before the High Court. It is the requirement of law that the copies must be obtained either by the head of department or by a person duly authorized in this behalf. In the present case, as stated earlier, the copies were obtained by Muhammad Jamil who is just a Coolie Mate and was temporarily asked by the department to appear on its behalf in the Court at Pallandri. The mandatory provisions, thus, have not been complied with, therefore, the appeal of the Government is not competent which, without attending other objections, is dismissed with costs."
In another case reported as State vs. Naseer Ahmed and another [2004 SCR 104], it was observed as under: "... Under Order XIII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, petition for leave to appeal is required to be accompanied by the judgment and order sought to be appealed from along with the grounds of appeal before the High Court. It is the requirement of rules that copies must be obtained in the name of the State by a person duly authorized in this behalf. In the present case the copies have not been obtained by the Advocate General or any other person authorized in this behalf, therefore the mandatory provisions have not been complied with. This petition for leave to appeal, therefore, is not competent Similarly, in the case reported as AJ&K Govt. and 2 others vs. Ch Khadim Hussain Ex. SDO [2005 SCR 211], it has been observed as under: "... In past we have repeatedly laid down that the petitioner who wants to avail the right of appeal should obtain the relevant copies in his name either personally or through his recognized attorney or agent who may be even his Advocate. In this connection Order XIII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978, is clear whereby the petitioner is required to file four copies of his petition for leave to appeal accompanied by the impugned judgment recorded against him by the Court below and copies of other necessary documents. The plain reading of the said rule shows that the petitioner either himself or through his recognized attorney/agent, who may be even an Advocate if he is duly appointed prior to filing of petition for leave to appeal, may obtain the copies of relevant documents in his name through such person."
Same like, in the case reported as Muhammad Seemab Khan Abbasi vs. AJ&K PSC and 9 others [2022 SCR 552], it has been observed by this Court in para 7 as under: "7. The perusal of the record reveals that the copy of the impugned judgment has been obtained by Ch. Shoukat Aziz, Advocate, who is neither a party nor the counsel for the either party before this Court. Under Order XIII, Rule 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, a party filing the petition for leave to appeal is required to file four copies of the petition for leave to appeal accompanied by the judgment/order appealed from and the other relevant documents and the copies of such documents shall be obtained in his/her name by himself/herself or through the recognized attorney/agent, who may be even an advocate, if he is dully appointed prior to the filing of petition for leave to appeal. In the instant case, no doubt, the copy of the impugned judgment has been obtained by Ch. Shoukat Aziz, Advocate, who was representing he petitioner, herein, before the High Court, however, as mentioned above, in the proceedings before this Court, Ch. Shoukat Aziz, Advocate, is neither party or the counsel for the party. The copy of the impugned judgment obtained in the name of or through any other person may be utilized for any other purpose, except to agitate the cause before the appellate Forum. It is consistent view of the superior Courts that when law provides doing of a particular thing in a particular way, all other modes of doing it are prohibited ...."
In the recent judgment passed by this Court in the case reported as Muhammad Lal vs. Muhammad Hanif and others [PLJ 2022 SC (AJ&K) 131], it has been observed as under: "... The principle of law laid down by this Court in a number of cases is that the party who wants to avail the right of appeal should obtain the relevant copies in his name either personally or through his recognized attorney or agent who may be even his Advocate ...."
In the case in hand, the certified copies have not been obtained by the appellants themselves or through their recognized agent, hence in view of the principle of law laid down by this Court in the above referred judgments, this appeal having been filed incompetently, is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground.
6. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, from the perusal of the judgments of the Courts below and the High Court it cannot be said that the evidence on record was misread by the said Courts, rather all the Courts properly attended the points in controversy between the parties. It is practically a settled law that concurrent findings of facts recorded by the trial Court and the first appellate Court cannot be disturbed by the High Court, howsoever, erroneous they may be but in the instant case the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be termed as erroneous particularly so when the same were approved and confirmed by the High Court. Reliance may be placed upon the case reported as Azmat Hussain Kayani and 2 others vs. Ansa Bibi and 4 others [2016 SCR 496], wherein it was observed as under: "... It may be observed here that in the instant case, the concurrent findings have been recorded by the Courts below and this Court is always reluctant to substitute the findings which have been concurrently recorded by the Courts below, except there appears any misreading or non-reading of the evidence, whereas, the learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out any such misreading or non-reading of the evidence."
Same like, in the case reported as Kamal Hussain vs. Muhammad Shabir and others [2017 SCR 236], it was observed as under: "7. The defendant-appellant could not succeed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence, therefore, the findings of facts concurrently recorded by the Courts below cannot be disturbed or interfered with merely on the strength of the argument which does not find support from the law or record."
In another case reported as Hanif Khan v Muhammad Hanif Khan and 10 others [2018 SCR 1303], it was observed as under: "... It is well settled law and practice of this Court that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be disturbed unless some misreading and non-reading of the record is noticed ..."
The case law referred to and relied upon by the learned Advocate representing the appellants, having distinguishable facts, is not applicable in the case in hand, hence need not be discussed.
In view of the above, this appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.