' Major Abdus Samad Khan, plaintiff-pre-emptor, has challenged the judgment of decree of the Civil Judge, Bannu dated 16-12-1981 and that of the District Judge, Bannu dated 26-5-1983 whereby his suit for possession by pre-emption in respect of the suit house was dismissed and appeal against the same rejected.
2. Facts of the case to be briefly stated are that Major Abdus Samad Khan, petitioner herein, instituted the suit of which this revision petition arises in the Court of Civil Judge, Bannu, for possession by pre-emption of house No. 318/E situated in Bannu City allegedly sold in favour of Muhammad Sher and two others through a consent decree dated 6-11-1976 in Suit No. 413/1. In the plaint, it was alleged that the suit house was sold to the defendants for the sum of Rs.1,000 and that he has got a superior right of pre-emption on the basis of his being the owner of contiguous property. This suit was instituted on 15-11-1977. The defendant-vendees resisted the suit on several legal and factual grounds including that of exemption under section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre- emption Act. The sale consideration was stated to be Rs.1,50,000 fixed and paid in good faith to the vendor. Pleas of limitation and valuation for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction were also raised. In support of his case, plaintiff appeared as his own witness and examined Muhammad Jalil, Social Welfare Department, Bannu, A.W. Muhammad Khan Education Clerk, Ashrafullah and Muhammad Sharif, while Attaullah Khan defendant appeared as his own witness and closed the case for the defendants. The learned trial Judge on taking into consideration the evidence of the parties, decided issue No. 1 regarding the exemption in favour of the defendants-vendees. Rest of the issues, being not relevant for the decision of the case, need no consideration. On the finding given over on issue No. 1 the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit. Appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was also dismissed by the District Judge, Bannu after holding that the defendants-vendees were entitled to the exemption claimed under section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the findings of the Courts below given over the issue pertaining to the exemption claimed by the defendant-vendees are not correct. According to him, the defendants - vendees have miserably failed to prove that they had abandoned their original residence of village Jani Khel or that they have taken a permanent residence at Bannu City, as was required for seeking exempt from pre-emption under the aforementioned provision of law. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on PLD 1964 Pesh.
140. The learned counsel further argued that there was available on the record documentary evidence in the shape of applications made by the respondents for scholarship to the competent authorities and that of for issuance of Domicile Certificate wherein they have given their addresses to be that of village Jani Khel. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, amounted to misreading of evidence rather ignoring the material evidence by the Courts below while giving their decision on the point. The learned counsel also addressed arguments on the issues partaining to limitation and preferential rights of pre-emption of the plaintiff, but as the decision on the issue pertaining to the exemption claimed by defendants vendees has direct bearing on the other issues, thus these contentions would be adverted to only in case findings of the Court below in this respect is not approved by this Court. In reply to the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents challenged the maintainability of this revision petition under section 115 of C.P.C. He contended that the issue whether the respondents are entitled to the exemption claimed was purely a question of fact resolved by proper appreciation of the evidence on the record. That both the Courts below after proper appraisal of the evidence have arrived at a concurrent findings that the vendees are the residents of Bannu City and, hence no exception could be taken to it in revisional jurisdiction by this Court.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, I am of the view that the objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents must prevail. The learned trial Judge in his elaborate and well-worded judgment has taken into consideration the entire evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter has reached to a positive conclusion that the defendants were successful in proving that they were the residents of Bannu City. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any material evidence which has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge or that there had been any misreading of the recorded evidence. In the circumstances of the case, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts below even if erroneous (though it is not so in this case) would not be liable to interference by this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction.
4. Consequently, there is no merit in this revision petition which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.