This revision petition calls in question the concurrent findings of the two Courts below dated 29-5- 1996 and 16-11-1996 respectively vide which the pre-emption suit of the plaintiff/petitioner was dismissed.
2. Facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that the plaintiff had filed a pre-emption suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Bannu on the ground that the suit land was actually sold to defendant No. l for an ostensible sale price of Rs.4,000 but no sale-deed was executed between, the parties and that due to contiguity and participator in immunities and appendages had got superior right of pre-emption over the suit land.
3. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Judge has materially erred in not giving his findings on the question of Talabs, market value and sale consideration. He argued that the registered power of attorney in favour of the vendees together with the fact of delivery of possession were sufficient to have prevailed upon the trial Court to have hold that a sale transaction had taken place. He submitted that the learned lower appellate court by discussing Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad in his impugned judgment has rather accepted the factum of sale. It was averred that even if the lower appellate Court had to confine itself to the question of Talbs, its verdict should be in variance with that of the trial Court by setting aside the impugned conclusion before it on the question of. Sale. It was lastly argued that the lower appellate Court had misread the evidence on the plea of Talbs. Because the plaint itself disclosed a specific date of coming to know of the plaintiff about the transaction of sale and sending of notice on a target date. He also argued that non-discussing of each and every issue framed in the case is a material irregularity cureable under section 115, C.P.C. By this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
4. I have anxiously considered the arguments advanced by the petitioner's side and thoroughly scanned the record with his valuable assistance.
5. It is true that in suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision with the reasons therefor upon each separate issue, as envisaged by Order 20, Rule 5, C.P.C., but it is equally true that there is no bar upon the Courts to decide the case on merits. For the sake of convenience, a Court can discuss more than one issues together. I have gone through the judgment of learned Civil Judge and find no force in the contention of they learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Judge has not given its findings on each and every issue. It is true that the learned Judge has not discussed each issue separately, but findings on all the issues have been given bye him. In the case in hand when the basic Issues Nos.6, 7 and 8 have been discussed and when the remaining issues were the outcome of the same issues, its discussion at length is not required having become redundant. The bone of dispute between the parties is the factum of sale transaction and in absence of any documentary proof in support thereof, the suit could not succeed, and hence the questions of Talbs and market value being of secondary nature were rightly not taken into consideration by the trial Court.
6. The learned District Judge in para. 8 of his judgment, no doubt has discussed the points regarding Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad, but with a clear observation, i.e. "without going to the question of sale". Therefore, the impression gathered by the petitioner's counsel that with the said discussion in paras. 8, 9 and 10 the lower appellate Court has accepted the factum of sale transaction between the parties is totally incorrect.
7. Revisional Jurisdiction of this Court under section 115, C.P.C. Are very limited and concurrent findings of Courts below should not be interfered with in revision, unless such findings are based on no evidence or were fanciful of arbitrary.
8. In the instant case, no jurisdictional defect or material irregularity of error of procedure was pointed but. Besides, the conclusion arrived at by the two Courts below is not the result of ignoring any material evidence or outcome of misreading of evidence or based on extraneous considerations and hence are nor open to an interference. Reliance in this context, can be placed on the case reported as Mst. Ambrin Begum v. Dr. Dev Kishan alias Kishan (1991 M LD 318).
9. For what is discussed above, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine, together with Civil Miscellaneous No. l5 of 1997.