' The revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-1-1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge I, Bahawalnagar, whereby he affirmed the order dated 19-6-1990 passed by the Civil Judge, Minchinabad .
' Mst. Rahmat Bibi (since deceased) filed declaratory suit against the petitioner Muhammad Eisa and Suleman (since deceased and now represented by his legal heirs respondents Nos. 1 to 3) claiming to be owner in possession of the suit land. She also challenged the sale-deed dated 2-7- 1973 being a result of fraud, forged and without consideration etc. The petitioner-defendant absented during the proceedings and an ex parte decree was passed against him on 11-5-1989. He then moved an application for setting aside the said decree, which gave rise to the following issues:--
(1) Whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside an ex parte decree dated 11-5-1989, O.P.A.
(2) Relief.
' The learned Civil Judge found that there was no sufficient ground for setting aside the ex parte decree and consequently he dismissed the application. The appeal filed by the petitioner- defendant also failed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and his witnesses had proved that the non-appearance of the petitioner was due to his illness and, therefore, the findings of both the Courts below in this regards were liable to be set aside.
4. Whether or not there existed sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 11-5- 1989 is a question of fact and ordinarily the concurrent findings of both the Courts below in this regard cannot be interfered in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. However, the perusal of the record shows that the petitioner did not produce any medical certificate and did not examine any Doctor/Hakim to show that he was, in fact, sick when he absented from the Court. The learned Civil Judge examined the evidence of the petitioner in detail in his order dated 19-6-1990 and pointed out various weaknesses in his evidence. It was rightly pointed out that the petitioner had failed to explain the absence of his two Advocates engaged on his behalf. None of them appeared as a witness to support the petitioner's contention. The concurrent findings of Courts below on question of fact seems to be in consonance with the evidence on record.
5. It is well-settled law that the High Court cannot interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction with the concurrent findings of facts unless there is any material irregularity or illegality affecting the decision of the Courts below. Even erroneous decisions on facts are not revisable except as mentioned above. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Abdul Hameed v. Ghulam Muhammad 1987 SCM R 1005; Haji Muhammad Zaman v. Zafar Ali Khan and others PLD 1986 SC 88; Kanwal Nain and 3 others v. Fateh Khan and others PLD 1983 SC 53, held the same view.
6. There are concurrent findings of facts in this case and no material irregularity or illegality affecting the decision of the Courts below has been pointed out. In the case of Muhammad Zaheer Khan and another v. Muhammad Zamir Khan 1987 SCM R 1144 the concurrent findings of fact, in the absence of any infirmity, were not interfered by the High Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the apex Court refused to grant leave to appeal. In the cases of Roazi Khan and others v. Nasir and others 1997 SCM R 1849 and Mussarat Sultana v. Muhammad Saeed 1997 SCM R 1866 the setting aside of the concurrent findings of facts by the High Court did not find favour with the Supreme Court and the judgments and decrees of the High Court were set aside and those of the trial Courts were restored.
' In view of the above, this revision petition is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine.