The facts leading to this revision petition, briefly, are that on 4-6-1969 Fazal Muhammad petitioner filed suit for possession of House No.B-117-A situate in Bhakkar, against Muhammad Younis, predecessor-in-interest. Of Muhammad Jafar and others, the respondents. The suit was resisted whereon 7 issues were framed. The plaintiff-petitioner produced S. Mohsin Hussain Jafri, Settlement Inspector as P.W.1. He tendered EX.P.1 plan of the property prepared by the Settlement Department and Ex.P.2 P.T.D. To rebut this evidence, the respondents produced -two witnesses, and tendered documents Ex.D.1 to D.6 in evidence. The trial Court dismissed the-suit on 17-12-1973. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this judgment and decree was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Mianwali, on 20-12-1974. Hence this revision.
2. Before me the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the findings of the Courts below on issue No.3 which is an under: The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings of the Courts below on this issue suffer from misreading of evidence; that the respondent has admitted in his statement that the petitioner had purchased the house consisting of two rooms and a verandah, whereas the property purchased by him comprised of two rooms only; that auction list Ex. D.3 shows that the respondent had purchased house comprising of two rooms only and that the description of the suit property given in the order of Rent Controller does not tally with the description of the suit property given in the plaint. Learned counsel has relied on cases Altaf- ur-Rehman's v. Bostan (1968 SCMR 1350); Muhammad Arif Yazdani v. Sh. Abdus Salam (PLD 1957 Lahore 983) and Khan Muhammad Hussain Khan v. Mir Sardar Ali (PLD 1961 BJ 42).
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on order dated 10-1-1968 Ex.
D.6 whereby Civil Court had found the' plaintiff petitioner not to be the owner of the suit property.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. The petitioner's case is that Muhammad Younis, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had illegally dispossessed him from his House No.B-117-A. As such he was entitled to possession thereof. The respondents' plea was/is that they owned and possessed the disputed house in their own rights. So the question for determination is as to whether the petitioner was/is owner of House NO:B-117-A where from he was illegally dispossessed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. This is almost an issue of fact. The Courts below have coocurrently A found the petitioner not to be the owner of House No.B- 117-A. The Courts below have applied their conscious mind to the relevant evidence and have given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by 'them: In his judgment, the learned Additional District Judge has stated that:- "In support of his contention, the present appellant did not lead any evidence whatsoever as he mainly relied upon the plan Ext. P---1 and P.T.D. Ext. P.2. These documents do not tend to advance his case in any way. On .The other hand, the respondents have riot only relied upon most independent and impartial oral evidence, but at the same time produced certain documentary evidence lending support to their contentions. The certified copies Exts. D.3 and D.4 of the Auction List show that the property having been transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents was occupied by Muhammad Din. It also transpires from the evidence of the two, witnesses of the respondents that said Muhammad Din .Had passed on the possession of this property to Abdul Razzaq. Muhammad Younis, the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents, therefore, filed an ejectment petition against Abdur Razzaq in the Court of the Rent Controller, Bhakkar and obtained an order of ejectment which was duly executed later on. The present appellant had filed objections under Order 21 Rules 100 and 101 C.P.C. In the Civil Court against the present respondents, but the same were dismissed on 15-1-1968. The perusal of the documents shows that the order of ejectment against Abdur Razzaq was passed in respect of property bearing No.B-117 and the prcdecessor-in-interest of, the present respondents had also taken possession of the same property in. Pursuance of the order of the Rent Controller. On the - other hand, document Ex.D.3 shows that the property presently transferred' to the appellant was occupied by one Imam Ali and although it is alleged that said Imam Ali had given its possession to Abdur Razzaq, this fact was not provcd on the record by the appellant by producing said Imam Ali in the witness-box. There is no denying the fact that property bearing No.B-117-A stands transferred to the present appellant, but there is no evidence available on the record to show that the present respondents or their predecessor-in--interest had at any time illegally trespassed over this property. The onus of issue No.3 was placed upon the appellant who has miserably failed to discharge it effectively."
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to controvert the B aforesaid observations made and reasons given by the learned appellate Court in its order dated 20-12-1.974. The learned counsel has not been able to point out .Any misreading of material evidence. The judgments of the Courts below do not suffer from illegality or material irregularity. The submissions made by the learned counsel do not make out a case for interference in exercise of revisional powers of this Court, with the impugned judgments and decrees. The cases cited by him do not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case.
5.Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision petition fails and is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.