1. ' This is a revision application directed against the Judgment of VIIth Additional District Judge, Karachi (Mr.Zahir Ahmed Khan), dated 3rd December, 1981, upholding the Judgment passed by XVIIth Civil Judge IIIrd Class (Miss Qaisar Iqbal) on 9th April, 1977 whereby she decreed the suit filed by respondent Sanjar.
2. ' Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff/respondent, Sanjar is that half of the Plot No, LY-18/120 (Old No, K-6/42-298) on Yousif Haroon Road, Baghdadi, Karachi with construction thereon belongs to him and the other half on the eastern side has been in occupation of the defendants. It is alleged that about a year prior to the filing of the suit by the respondent, the defendant opened an entrance in the common wall dividing the two portions and constructed a courtyard measuring 4'-10" x 8'-3" unauthorisedly. When the plaintiff brought labourers to raise construction on his side of the plot, the defendants interfered with their work, as a result whereof the plaintiff brought a suit against the defendants. The suit was resisted by the defendants who filed joint written statement denying the allegations of the plaintiff. According to them the plaintiff is neither owner of the plot in dispute nor the construction on the said plot belongs to him. Their plea is that the defendant Umer and his four sisters and mother are the owners of the construction on the western portion of the plot. It is further pleaded by them that plaintiff is only a licensee as he has been staying on the plot with their permission. According to the applicant's case even defendants Nos.2 and 3 have the status of only licensees.
3. ' The learned trial court framed nine issues which were all decided in favour of the plaintiff and consequently the suit filed by him was decreed. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court the defendants filed an appeal which, as stated above, also failed. In these circumstances the defendant Umar has now filed this revision petition.
4. 'The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard and with their assistance the relevant material for the purpose of disposal of this application available on record was also gone through.
5. ' It may be stated at the outset that as a court of revision, this court has a limited scope for interference. This Court cannot interfere unless, it is shown that the two courts below have exercised jurisdiction not vested in them or have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or have in any way acted illegally, in violation of the law. My attention has been drawn to the recent authority of the Supreme Court reported as Mst. Humna Bibi and others v. Niaz Gul and others 1984 SCMR 203, wherein it was held:- "The petitioners then came to the High Court in revision and pressed their case on the ground of misreading of evidence but as they failed to point out any misreading and all they wanted was the appreciation of the evidence the High Court declined to undertake the exercise in revisional jurisdiction and accordingly dismissed the revision in limine. In the background of the case and after hearing learned counsel, we do not find the order of the High Court open to exception. The petition is therefore dismissed."
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the two courts below have exercised jurisdiction not vested in them or they have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they have acted illegally. It is also not his case that the findings of the lower courts are based on misreading of evidence. However his contention is that no findings have been recorded on the issues Nos.5 and 6 which are material issues nor the decision of the said issue is supported by any reasoning. In this connection reliance has been placed on the case of Ali Muhammad v.
7. Muhammad Hayat and others 1982 SCMR 816. The view taken in this case was that as provided in Order XX, rule 5, C P C in suits in which issues have been framed, the court shall state its finding or decision with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for decision of the suit and as such the trial judge was bound to give reasons for his decision on each separate issue and the disposal of issues Nos.1-5 by simply observing that "all these issues have no substantive force in view of the findings given under issue No,6" was not a proper decision in accordance with law.
8. ' The issues Nos. 5 & 6 are to the following effect: ' Whether plaintiff is entitled to get decree of possession of the suit property?
9. ' Whether plaintiff is entitled to get a relief of permanent injunction." The learned trial court has decided these issues in the following terms: "Issues Nos. 5 & 6 ' In view of my findings on issues Nos. 1 & 2, being lawful owner and is entitled to the declaration and injunction."
10. ' Above issues are decided in affirmative.
11. ' It would appear that above two issues are linked with issues Nos.1 & 2 and therefore the decision on former issues is dependent on the decision of the latter issues. The issue No,1: "Whether the Plaintiff is owner of the suit property" and issue No,2: "who is the owner of the construction on the suit property" have after detailed discussion been decided in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the decision on these issues, the issues Nos. 5 & 6 which are only consequential issues have been correctly decided in the affirmative. It was not necessary to repeat the reasoning already given in support of the decision of issues Nos. 1 & 2 on which, as has been stated above, the decision of issues Nos. 5 & 6 is dependent. The Supreme Court authority is obviously not applicable in the instant case. It is only each independent issue which is to be discussed separately and is supported by separate reasoning. The issues which are interlinked are invariably discussed and disposed together as the same reasoning covers such issues. Thus the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant has no force.
12. The learned counsel for the applicant next contended that the respondent has failed to prove that the suit property belongs to him. It will suffice to say that it is a question of fact whether the property in dispute belongs to the respondent or not. Since both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings on the above question of fact, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to show that the findings of the lower courts on the question of ownership of the suit property are based on misreading of evidence. In view of the Supreme Court authority referred to above, this Court cannot undertake reappraisal of the evidence on record.
13. ' The case of Mst. Noor Nisa v. Abdus Salam and another PLD 1982 Pesh. 42 relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is also not applicable in the instant case, as pointed out above the learned counsel has not been able to show that the findings of the lower court are based on misreading.
14. The last contention of the learned counsel for the applicant was that the suit was hit by limitation. It is however not denied that the plea of limitation was not raised at any earlier stage of the litigation.
15. On perusal of the written statement, it would appear that no such plea was taken nor it was agitated in either of the two lower courts. As the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, it cannot be permitted to be raised at this belated stage.
16. ' In view of above discussion, the revision application is without merit and as such it is dismissed with no order as to costs.