1. ' This is a Revision Application at the stage of Katcha Peshi. The brief facts are that the respondent Mst. Hajiani Wallayat widow of Haji Haroon had been in use and occupation of the land bearing No,156 since before the Partition. She resided with her husband late Haji Haroon for many years.
2. One Jumoma uncle of Haji Haroon also resided with them and both Haji Haroon and Jumma spent a huge amount on the construction of the said plot. The City Deputy Collector entered the name of Jumma and Haji Haroon in the record after the full verification. Respondent being an old woman and helpless widow the petitioner Khalid trespassed on a portion of her plot and raised illegal construction. His encroachment on the plot was resisted by the respondent and also by the Mohallah people. Consequently the respondent filed a suit to get the permanent injunction. The applicant Khalid contested the suit and filed written statement denying all the allegations of the respondent. He has denied to have occupied the plot of the respondent by force and illegal means.
3. He has however, stated in written statement that Plot No,787 falls within K.P.T. Area and not within K.M.C. Area. The respondent is not the owner of Plot No,787. He has further stated he is in occupation of the said plot for the last 30 years. On the pleadings of the parties the Civil Judge framed the following issues:- "(1) Whether the plaintiff is the owners of disputed plot of land?
(2) Whether the defendant has forcibly encroached upon the portion of the plot belonging to the plaintiff ?
(3) Whether the defendant is in possession of the plot of land belonging to K.M.C.?
(4) Whether the suit is not properly valued and proper (court-fee) has not been paid?
(5) Whether the suit is maintainable in law?
4. (6)What should the decree be?
5. ' The first two issues were answered in the affirmative while the third issue was found to be redundant. The fourth issue was answered in negative while the fifth issue was answered in affirmative and the suit was thus decreed. An appeal was preferred before the Additional District Judge which was also dismissed. Thus there are two concurrent judgments supporting the respondent as such. It is needless to go into the facts but the evidence as assessed by the Civil Judge is on record and is reasoned out by him while dealing with issues Nos.1 and 2. The finding of the learned Civil Judge is that the respondent has produced Exh.P/2 which is an extract of the suit Plot No,156 showing owners' name as Haroon and Jumma.
6. ' This document is prepared as per record and inquiry. The claim of the petitioner that he occupies the Plot No,787 and which is within K.P.T. Area was found to be having no meaning and worth as the respondent claimed ownership of Plot No,156. The witness produced by the petitioner before the lower Court has not given any evidence in support of the petitioner's contention that he has been in possession of the suit plot for the last 25 years. Documents produced by the petitioners P/2 and P/3 do not bear the number of the suit plot whereas the respondent has got the documentary evidence of the ownership of the suit plot. On facts the judgments given by the Civil Judge and Additional District Judge are justified and I find no fault therein.
7. ' The only contention is that a suit was filed for permanent injunction which is not maintainable according to the Specific Relief Act. The learned counsel has referred me to sections 54 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act. In this matter section 54 applies where there needs to be no prayer for possession. This is a Revision contemplated under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 115 C.P.C. Is worded as under:-- "115. Revision-The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears:--
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit."
8. ' The clauses (a), (b) and (c), I feel, do not apply inasmuch as the Courts have not exercised jurisdiction not vested by law. Similarly the Courts have not failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in them nor they have acted in the exercise of their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. I am referred to 1980 CLC 1567 in a case Idrees Shah v. Assistant Collector. It was held that the contention that concurrent finding of the two Courts below cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction was not correct in the circumstances of the case. The Courts failed to consider the material questions involved in the case and to bring extraneous and irrelevant matter. This authority is not applicable inasmuch as neither extraneous nor irrelevant questions where considered nor material questions were omitted. In a case Kanwal Nain and 3 others v. Fateh Khan and 2 others PLD 1983 SC 53 his Lordship Zaffar Hussain Mirza, J. Observed that the revisional powers under section 115 are primarily intended for Correcting errors made by subordinate Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction and erroneous decisions of facts are not revisable, except in cases where the decision is based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence or is so perverse that grave injustice would result therefrom. The observations of his Lordship Zaffar Hussain Mirza, J. Of the Supreme Court lays down that the Courts need not to go in the details of the facts excepting where the errors are such that have occasioned injusitice or failure of justice.
9. In the instant case I have very carefully gone through the contentions of both the parties in the lower Courts and the concurrent judgments of the two Courts below and have come to the conclusion that this is not a case where the revision may be admitted on any of the grounds mentioned in the Revision Application. I, therefore, dismiss the petition in limine.