CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land in disputes.- The contents of the plaint revealed that petitioner/defendant got the suit bind transferred in his name through Mutation No. 1639, dated 2.4.1970 on the basis of bogus power-of-attorney and obtained its possession thereof and the respondent had filed a suit in Civil Court, Narowal for a declaration that the said general power-of-attorney and mutation No. 1639 were against law and facts, bogus and not binding upon his rights and the suit was decreed in his favour and further revealed from the contents of the plaint that the petitioner got the land in dispute from one Abdul Ghaffar fraudulently with connivance of Abdul Ghafoor. Consequently, on the refusal of the petitioner, the respondent filed suit. The petitioner filed a written statement controverting the contents of the plaint. The learned trial Court out of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: ISSUES:
(1) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.
(2) Whether the suit has been correctly valued for the purposes of Court- fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is the correct valuation? OP-Parties.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his words and conduct and deed to bring the present suit?
OPP.
(4) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the land in dispute? OPP.
(5) Whether the defendant is the bona fide purchaser for value, if so, with , what effect? OPD.
(6) Relief.
2. The leamed trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment dated 23.7.1977. The petitioner aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the leamed trial Court, filed an appeal before the District Judge, D.G. Khan who vide his judgment and decree dated 28.6.1978 dismissed the appeal, hence the present revision petition.
3. The learned counsel of the petitioner contended that both the Courts below committed material irregularity, when they did not avert to the form of the suit. He further argued that the suit was clearly barred by virtue of Order 2, Rule 2 CPC because the respondent/plaintiff in his earlier suit for declaration failed to seek further relief of possession. He further contended that both the causes of action arise from a single transaction, but both the Courts below did not apply their independent mind towards this aspect of the case and suit was also hit by the principle of res judicata. He further argued that after the amendment of the-written statement, the leamed Courts below failed to frame additional issues, which is their duties and obligations under the law. The evidence on record was not property recorded, therefore, judgments Of both the Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that all these pleas raised by the learned counsel of the petition were ^either raised before the trial Court nor before the first Appellate Court and even the petitioner did not take these grounds/pleas in the grounds of revision petition, therefore, the learned counsel of the petitioner could not raise fresh pleas at the revision stage. He further argued that the finding of facts concurrently decided against the petitioner, therefore, revision petition is not maintainable. The findings on Issues Nos. 1, 3 and 5 were decided against the petitioner by the trial Court for want of proof, as the petitioner did not appear in person in spite of direction by the trial Court, therefore, the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte and petitioner failed to produce the evidence. Issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the respondent/plaintiff after appreciation of evidence of the respondent/plaintiff, as the respondent/plaintiff never executed special power-of-attorney in favour of him. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner only' argued before the first Appellate Court regarding issues Nos. 1 and 4 and the finding on issue No. 1 is as follows:- "There is no evidence of the defendant on record regarding this issue. For want of proof, this issue is decided against the defendant."
The finding of the first Appellate Court on Issue No. 1 is as follows:- "As the right to get possession did not exist at the time of the institution of the first suit, therefore, the present suit was not barred 1 under Order 2, Rue 2 CPC. The trial Court had rightly decided issue No. 1 against the appellant."
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties. It is admitted fact that ex parte proceedings were proceeded against the petitioner/defendant. The findings of fact after appreciation of the evidence on record by the trial Court on issues No. I and 4 were duly upheld by the learned first Appellate Court. It is also admitted fact on record that the petitioner only argued before the first Appellate Court regarding the findings on issues Nos. 1 and 4, therefore, the findings on other issues are final qua the parties. The petitioner cannot agitate the findings on other issues before this Court. It is also admitted fact that petitioner did not take any ground in the first Appellate Court as well as before this Court that after the amendment of the written statement, the Court has to frame additional issues and the evidence was to be recorded by the trial Court in violation of the provisions of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat/Evidence Act. The additional pleas raised by the learned counsel are not pure question of law, in fact these please are missed question of law and fact, which cannot be resolved without recording evidence, therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to raise these additional pleas at the time of arguing the revision petition, lt is pertinent to mention here that the revision petition was admitted for regular hearing on 10.1.1979 but the petitioner did not file any application for the amendment on the grounds of revision petition therefore, petitioner at this belated stage is not allowed to raise the additional pleas. The findings on Issues Nos. 1 and 4 concurrently decided against the petitioner after appreciation of evidence on the record, such type of finding of fact concurrently decided against the petitioner while exercising jurisdiction u/S. 115 CPC, this Court cannot disturb the findings of fact concurrently decided against the petitioner.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.