' This civil revision has arisen out of a suit for partition of a shop which is alleged to be joint property of the parties. The suit was brought by the respondent, Hassan Muhammad, against the petitioners Muhammad Shaft and others. It was resisted by the petitioners whereupon following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi and cause of action? O.P.D.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his words and conduct to file the suit? O.P.D.
(3) Whether the suit is undervalued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction? If so, what is the correct valuation and what is its effect upon the suit? O.P.D.
(4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? 0 .P . D.
(5) Whether the suit is time-barred? O.P.D.
(6) Whether the plaintiff and the defendent No,1 got the properties including the shop in dispute divided between themselves through arbitration mentioned in para. No,3 of the written statement and the shop in dispute fell to share of defendant No,1?
(7) If issue No,6 is not proved in affirmative then whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of the shop and exclusive possession thereof.
(8) Relief.
2. All the issues' were decided against the petitioners and preliminary decree was passed by the learned trial Civil Judge. This judgment and decree were assailed by the petitioners by means of an appeal which was dismissed by an Additional District Judge. They have, therefore, come up in revision to this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners not only challenged the findings of the learned trial Court on issues Nos.6 and 7 but also on issues Nos.1 to 5. Before the learned appellate. Court, however, no exception was taken to the findings of the learned Court on the first A five issues. It is, therefore, not open to the petitioners to assail those findings. Learned counsel also did not point out any defect justifying interference with the findings of the learned trial Court on issues Nos.1 to 5. I am, therefore, unable to disturb these findings.
4. 'In regard to issues Nos.6 to 7, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the two Courts below had misread the evidence while deciding those issues. No misreading of evidence was, however, pointed out by him. It was also urged by him that document Exh.D.1., produced by the petitioners, was not taken into account b the two Courts below. This is not correct because the said document was examined by the learned lower Courts while deciding the matter. They discussed the parties evidence before recording findings on issues Nos.6 and 7 and do not appear to have committed any illegality o material irregularity in deciding the said issues. Their findings thereon, therefore, do not call for any interference even if they happen to b erroneous.
5. There is no force in this revision. It is dismissed in limine.