MUHAMMAD UAZ KHAN, J. Though the instant revision petition, petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree of learned Civil Judge/Maga Qazi Matta Swat dated 13.12.2017 whereby the suit of petitioners/plaintiffs was dismissed and that of judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zila Qazi Matta Swat dated 24.02.2020 whereby the appeal filed by petitioners/plaintiffs was also dismissed.
2. Precisely the facts of the case are that the present petitioners then plaintiffs brought a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 are owners to the extent of 1/24 shares, whereas plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5 are owners to the extent of 2/24 shares and that the defendants/respondents have no right to deny this right of the petitioners and in this regard the entries are required to be made in the revenue record in the name of petitioners/ plaintiffs.
3. Respondents then defendants were summoned and they filed their written statement wherein they raised various legal and factual objections.
4. In view of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as eight issues and thereafter the parties were required to produce their respective evidence. After recording of evidence the learned trial Court vide one of the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.12.2017 dismissed the suit of petitioners/plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the petitioner /plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the I Court of learned Additional District Judge/haft Zila Qazi Maul Swat, however, the same was also dismissed vide the second impugned judgment and decree dated 24.02.2020. Petitioners have now challenged the aforesaid judgments and decree of the two Courts below before this Court through the instant petition.
5. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners were heard in considerable detail and the record perused with his able assistance.
6. It is the case of petitioners/ plaintiffs that they are owners to the extent of their prescribed shares as find mentioned in the heading of the plaint as the suit property was being their ancestral property however the respondents/ defendants with the active connivance of the revenue officials have entered the same in their names, which entries are factually incorrect and are thus ineffective upon the rights of petitioners/plaintiffs. As against this, the case of respondents/ defendants is that they are owners of the suit property and as such the same has rightly been entered in their names in the revenue record as they have purchased it through various sale deeds spreading over a period from 1984 to 1988 and since then they are in possession of the same and that they have never occupied or purchased the property owned by the petitioners/plaintiffs .
7. It may be noted that under Article 117 of The Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 it is for the plaintiffs to prove the existence of all those facts which plaintiffs have pleaded in their plaint. It would be relevant to reproduce Article 117 of The Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 as under;
117. Burden of proof.---(1) Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right of liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
(2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."
The aforesaid Article manifestly shows that any person who desires a Court to pass any judgment or order in their favour they are required to prove the existence of all those facts which they have pleaded in the plaint. Since petitioners were plaintiffs before the learned trial Court, therefore, they were under statutory obligation to prove all those facts/pleas which they pleaded in their plaint, however, the record would show that they have miserably failed to prove the same that the suit property was their ancestral property or that the same has wrongly been entered in the name of respondents/defendants in the revenue record on the basis of fraud, or through any illegal means.
8. As stated hereinabove that the petitioners being plaintiffs were required to prove their case on the basis of- their own evidence, however, in the evidence produced by them, they have not been able to prove their case rather they have made such admissions in their statements which are fatal for their case as when the defendant/petitioner No. I himself appeared in the Court as PW-1 he has made the following admissions:- He further added in his cross-examination as under;- The aforesaid clear cut admissions on the part of petitioner/ plaintiff would show that he is uncertain about their claim as he has admitted in his cross-examination that he is unaware of any partition amongst the Pukhtoon owners. He has also shown ignorance to the effect that on the basis of which criteria he is owner of six rupees of property out of 26 rupees of property. Ile has also completely unaware with respect to any transaction which has taken place in the joint property. He has also admitted that he has not impleaded all the joint owners/co-owners in his plaint and over and above he has candidly and honestly admitted that the deeds executed in favour of respondents/defendants are correct and he has also admitted the possession of respondents/defendants over the suit property and thus the petitioners/plaintiffs ' could not bring on record any positive, trustworthy and legally admissible evidence to issue the desired decree in their favour.
9. It is by now settled that it is the statutory obligation of the plaintiff to prove his own case on the basis of his own evidence and he cannot derive any benefit from the lapses or weaknesses of the defendant's case. In the case of "Muhammad Latif v. Bashir Ahmed and others" reported as 2004 CLC 1010, the Hon'ble Lahore Court, has held that it is settled proposition of law that a party has to succeed on the basis of his own evidence and not on account of lapses in the case of his adversary. In the case of "Abdul Waheed v. Muhammad Bilal" reported as PLD 2005 Peshawar 19 this Court has held that needless to emphasize that burden of proof always lies upon the plaintiff and plaintiff cannot be benefited from short comings of defendant's case. The aforesaid view was also followed in the case title "General Manager, Azad Kashmir Logging Sawmills Corporation Muzaffarabad v. Abdul Reitman and 2 others" reported as 2013 CLC 1473.
10. As against this, the case of respondents/defendants finds support from the documentary evidence. It is part of the record that the suit property is duly recorded in the names of respondents/defendants in the first ever settlement of the area and thus strong presumption of correctness are attached to such like entries. It is also settled law that in order to dislodge such entries any person aggrieved of it has to produce positive, convincing and trustworthy evidence, however, in the present case petitioners/plaintiffs have not brought on record any kind of evidence except mere oral evidence what to speak of positive, convincing and trustworthy evidence. In the case of Nawab Khan and others v. Said Karim Khan and others reported as 1997 SCMR 1840 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the presumption of truth is attached to the record of rights generally but to the first ever settlement record in particular. Very, strong evidence is required to rebut the presumption of correctness attached to the first settlement record of an area. Similarly, in the case of Mazloom Hussain v. Abid Hussain and 4 others reported as PLD 2008 SC 571, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where a pre-sumption of truth is attached to a document, it cannot be discarded unless proved otherwise by convincing and cogent evidence and the burden of proof that the entries in record of rights were wrong, is on the party who alleges it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Haji Allah Bakhsh v.
Abdullah Khan and 4 others reported as 2001 SCMR 363 has held that it is settled law that presumption of truth of the highest degree is attached to the entries of the first ever Settlement Record of a revenue estate: In order to dislodge this entry extraordinary strong evidence is required which, in the instant case, is not at all available on the record.
11. It is also part of the evidence that respondents/defendants are in possession of the suit property and thus the case of the respondents/ defendants being recorded owners in the revenue record and having possession is on much higher pedestal than the case of petitioners/ plaintiffs. The case of petitioners is a classical example of oral assertions versus the documentary evidence as the petitioners/plaintiffs have pleaded oral assertions in their evidence but they could not bring on record any documentary evidence to support their stance. It is settled law that documentary evidence has to be given preference over the oral assertions. In the case of "Shamshad v. Aril Ashraf Khan and others" reported as 2010 SCMR 473 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that through the pleadings, evidence particularly produced by the respondent himself. There is nothing to discuss that oral evidence could not be given preference over documentary evidence. Similar view was also reiterated by the Sindh 'High Court in its judgment rendered in the case of "Muhammad Rasheed v. Mst. Saeeda Bano and 4 others" reported as 2014 CLC 990 by holding that documentary evidence prevails over the oral evidence and if documentary evidence is recorded by a public officer in discharge of official duty it would be preferable to an oral statement of a witness.
12. In this case, the two Courts below have concurrently recorded their findings of facts and law, which this Court found them as perfectly in accordance with the available evidence of the parties and thus the same neither suffer from any mis-reading or non-reading of evidence nor the same suffer from any illegalities or material irregularities, so as to warrant the interference of this Court in a revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. The scope, extent and domain of revisional jurisdiction of this Court has elaborately been dilated upon by the, Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment titled Nasir Ali v. Muhammad Asghar reported as 2022 SCMR 1054, it was also held that section 115, C.P.C empowers and mete out the High Court to satisfy and reassure itself that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; the case is one in-which. the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction and in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally or in breach of some provision of law or with material irregularity or by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied that aforesaid principles have not been unheeded or disregarded by the Courts below, it has no power to interfere in the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to the extent of mis-reading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional error or an illegality of the nature in the judgment which may have material effect on the result of the case or if the conclusion drawn therein is perverse or conflicting to the law. Furthermore, the High Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent conclusions arrived at by the courts below while exercising power under section 115, C.P.C. Similarly, in the case of Salamat Ali and others v.
Muhammad Din and others reported as PLD 2022 Supreme Court 353, it was also held that a revisional Court cannot upset a finding of fact of the Court(s) below unless that finding is the result of mis-reading, non-reading, or perverse or absurd appraisal of some material evidence. The revisional Court cannot substitute the finding of the Court(s) below with its own merely for the reason that it finds its own finding more plausible than that of the Court(s) below.
Similar view also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Muhammad Sarwar and others v. Hashmal Khan and others reported as PLD 2022 Supreme Court 13, where in para-6 it was held that it is well settled exposition of law, deducible from plethora of dictums laid down by superior Courts that section 115, C.P.C. empowers and meted out the High Court to satisfy and reassure itself that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction and in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally or in breach of some provision of law or with material irregularity or by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied that aforesaid principles have not been unheeded or disregarded by the Courts below, it has no power to interfere in the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law.
It was also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para-10 of the judgment rendered in the case of Mst.
Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan reported as PLD 2022 Supreme Court 21, that in the case of Shahbaz Gul and others v. Muhammad Younas Khan and others (2020 SCMR 867), this Court declared that where two different interpretations were possible of the evidence brought on record, then appraisal of facts of lower Courts should not be overturned by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Between two possible interpretations, the one adopted by the trial and appellate Courts should have been maintained, keeping in mind the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. In the case of Khudadad v. Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah alias S. lnaam Hussain and others reported as 2022 SCMR 933, it was also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the High Court has a narrow and limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent rulings arrived at by the Courts below while exercising power under section 115, C.P.C. These powers have been entrusted and consigned to the High Court in order to secure effective exercise of its superintendence and visitorial powers of correction unhindered by technicalities which cannot be invoked against conclusion of law or fact which do not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the Court but confined t6 the extent of mis-reading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional error or an illegality of the nature in the judgment which may have material effect on the result of the case or the conclusion drawn therein is perverse or contrary to the law, but interference for the mere fact that the appraisal of evidence may suggest another view of the matter is not possible in revisional jurisdiction, therefore, the scope of the appellate and revisional jurisdiction must not be mixed up or bewildered.
13. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgments and decree respectively dated 13.12.2017 and 24.02.2020 are neither the result of mis-reading nor non-reading of evidence nor petitioners could pointed-out any jurisdictional defects or material irregularities in the same, therefore, the same are upheld and maintained and accordingly the instant revision is hereby dismissed, in limine.