Arbab Muhammad Tahir, J.- This Civil Revision is directed against judgments and decrees dated 19.10.2016 and 04.01.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class and the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad (West).
2. Succinctly, the facts are that father of the petitioner(Nazar Hussain Shah son of Fazal Hussain Shah) instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against respondents/defendants, wherein it was asserted that, he was the owner in possession of property No.307-B situated in village Seri Seral Tehsil & District Islamabad (hereinafter the "Property"). The Property was acquired for development of sector I-15/4, Islamabad and accordingly award, dated 09.02.1988, was announced. Pursuant to the award, Plot No.962 (old)/883 (new), I-14/4, Islamabad (hereinafter the "Plot") was allotted to father of the pettiioner, as compensation against the acquisition of Property.
On 15.03.1997, respondent No.1 (Tatheer Hussain Shah son of Fazal Hussain Shah) filed application before the Deputy Commissioner, CDA/defendant No.3 for correction of the name in the Award. It was the case of Tatheer Hussain Shah/Respondent No.1 that he was the real owner in possession of the Property and entitled to receive the compensation against the Award, however, his name was incorrectly mentioned as "Nazir Hussain Shah". He also objected allotment of the plot in the name of "Nazar Hussain Shah" as the name mentioned in the Award at Sr. No.890 against property No.307-B was "Nazir Hussain Shah". Consequently, the application of Tatheer Hussain Shah/Respondent No.1 was accepted and show cause notice, dated 29.08.2005 was issued to father of the petitioner. The Capital Development Authority finally cancelled the Plot from the name of Nazar Hussain Shah. The father of the petitioner, therefore, instituted the suit to seek a decree of declaration that he is the legal owner of the plot alongwith perpetual injunction. The suit was contested by the defendants.
Attorney of the father of the petitioner i.e. Rafaqat Hussain Shah entered the witness box as PW-1 on his behalf and exhibited the power of attorney as Exh.P1. To counter the claim in the plaint, the Respondent No.1 himself entered the witness box as DW-1. To prove his version, he produced three witnesses i.e. Ajmal Hussain Shah (DW-2/ real brother), Malik Allah Bukhsh Awan (DW-3/local inhabitant) and Muhammad Ramzan (DW-4/local inhabitant), whereas, Khizar Hayat, UDC, CDA entered the witness box as DW-5. They produced their respective documentary evidence. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 19.01.2016. An appeal was filed by the father of the petitioner before the learned District Judge, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 14.01.2018, hence the instant civil revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was the real owner of the Property and the Plot was rightly allotted in his name as compensation; the application for correction filed by the Respondent No.1/Tatheer Hussain Shah was barred by time; the Award had attained finality and could not have been reopened at belated stage; the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner i.e. "Nazar Hussain Shah" was incorrectly mentioned as "Nazir Hussain Shah" in the Award; rights had accrued in favour of the predecessor- in-interest of the petitioner and could not have been taken away through arbitrary exercise of authority; consideration of the Plot was paid by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, which had been duly endorsed by CDA; one can confuse between "Nazar and Nazir" but not in "Nazir and Tatheer"; the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have misread the evidence; the impugned judgments and decrees are legally not sustainable.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that; Respondent No.1/Tatheer Hussain Shah was the real owner in possession of the Property; his name was inadvertently mentioned as "Nazir Hussain Shah"; the father of the petitioner unjustly benefitted from the inadvertent mistake of the name; the father of the petitioner could not produce even one native person of the locality to support his version; except the power of attorney nothing could be produced in evidence on behalf of the father of the petitioner; the oral and documentary evidence produced by Respondent No.1 was sufficient to decline the relief claimed by the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner in the main suit; the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate courts have rendered well-reasoned judgments and decrees.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the Property was acquired through Award, dated 09.02.1988.
The name of the affectee at Sr. No.890 against property No.307-B has been mentioned as Nazir Hussain Shah son of Fazal Hussain Shah. The Respondent No.1/Tatheer Hussain Shah produced 03 witnesses, out of which the name of DW-2 Ajmal Hussain Shah son of Fazal Hussain Shah (his real brother) has been mentioned at Sr. No.903 against property No.317-B. This document has not been produced in original neither exhibited but only marked as Mark-DD, however, the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner, the witness of CDA, the respondent No.1 and his witness, all have admitted authenticity of the said document. The plaintiff/father of the petitioner could not produce any evidence with regard to his ownership of the Property. In fact, one Rafaqat Hussain Shah entered the witness box as sole witness who only exhibited his power of attorney to prove his locus standi to testify in place of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. On the other hand, Respondent No.1/Tatheer Hussain Shah produced three witnesses who were native of the locality/village. The witnesses categorically testified that Tatheer Hussain Shah was the real owner of the Property and his name also appears in the record of CDA and that mentioning the name of "Nazir Hussain Shah" in place of "Tatheer Hussain Shah" was a typographical mistake in the Award. They were cross examined at length but nothing favourable to the case of the plaintiff/predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner could be extracted.
7. There is no cavil to the proposition that the scope of powers under Section 115 of the C.P.C. is of a limited nature, particularly when the findings of two Courts are concurrent. However, the eventualities which would justify interference are (i) where there is misreading and non-reading of evidence on the record which is conspicuous, (ii) where there is error in the exercise of jurisdiction,
(iii) the courts have acted in the exercise of their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, and (iv) the findings of fact recorded are without considering documents and record in their true prospective. Reliance is placed on case of "Nazim-ud-Din and others Versus Sheikh Zia-ul- Qamar and others" [2016 SCMR 24] and "Nasir Ali v. Muhammad Asghar" [2022 SCMR 1054].
8. On the touchstone of the above principles and law, the petitioner could not make out a case that the learned courts below had acted without jurisdiction or that the concurrent findings are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence. The impugned judgments and decrees are well reasoned and do not require interference.
9. For what has been discussed above, the instant revision petition is without merit and is, therefore, accordingly dismissed.