' Briefly stated, the facts of the case in hand, are that the petitioner/plaintiff had instituted a suit, against the defendants/respondents, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chitral (Mr. Sajad Anwar) for declaration that they alongwith defendants Nos.13 and 14 are the owners of the suit land, fully detailed in the heading of the plaint, and that the respondents/defendants Nos.15 to 20 had no right to pass any order or to interfere with the land in question in any manner. The petitioners/plaintiffs prayed, additionally, for the possession of the suit land.
2. The respondents/defendants contested the suit and raised quite a few legal as well as factual objections.
3. The pleadings of the parties were reduced to various issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, as they wished to produce, the petitioners/plaintiffs' suit was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge vide his judgment/decree, dated 6-6-1994.
4. Aggrieved by said order the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an appeal before the District Judge, Chitral (Malik Mujtaba Ahmad) who by his judgment recorded on 21-9-1994 dismissed the same. Hence this revision petition.
5. Mr. Hafiz Aman Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Muhammad Aman Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 12 and Mr. Muhammad Waris Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No,13 present and heard at length.
6. I have had the advantage of going through the plaint/written statements/issues/evidence of the parties, especially of the plaintiff petitioners/judgments of the trial Court and the District Judge, with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. There is no need to give the detailed history of the case in hand because the same has been given by the trial Court as well as the District Judge in detail. However, it would be sufficient to say that Exh.P.W.1/2 is a document which reveals that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs Bali Khan had requested the Ex-Ruler of Chitral (Sir Shujaul Mulk) that he should be given some property in Bilphoke. This document is dated 29-6-1933. Exh.P.W.1/3 is another document which reveals that the Ex-Ruler, Chitral had given some property to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff/petitioners in village Bilphoke. This document is dated 3-7-1933. It may be stated that the present suit is in respect of the property which is situated in village Beliuough. The two villages are different villages. The property in dispute is admittedly not in the possession of the plaintiffs. In the circumstances, I am fully convinced in my mind that the suit property is not the subject-matter of the deed, dated 20-6-1933 as the same is situated in village Bilphoke.
8. Needless to mention that Exh.P.W.1/4 to Exh.P.W.1/37 are the documents which show that the suit property was the subject-matter of the suit which stands decided between the same parties under the Riwaj and that thereafter, the appeal/revision filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed up to the Additional Home Secretary under the FATA Regulation. After their failure in the first round of litigation, the plaintiff/petitioners have now initiated the present/second round of litigation. It may be stated that the suit property which is the subject-matter of the present suit and that in the previous suit between the same parties before Mizan-e-Sharria, is the same and as such the suit of the petitioners/plaintiff is hit by the principle of res judicata. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to make me understand as to how the petitioners/plaintiffs could re-open the matter which has since been decided by forums of competent jurisdiction under the FATA Regulation.
9. It has probably escaped the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioners that section 115, C.P.C. Applies only to cases involving the illegal assumption, non-exercise or irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the lower Courts. The provision of section 115 cannot be invoked against conclusions of law or fact which do not, in any way, affect the jurisdiction of the Court, no matter; however, erroneous or wrong, the decision might be, either on a question of fact or law, unless the decision involves a matter of jurisdiction. Needless to mention that if a Court has jurisdiction, then in that case, it has jurisdiction to decide one way or the other and erroneous conclusion of law or fact can only be corrected In appeal but a revision will not be competent on such a ground. In other words the High Court may interfere where subordinate Court has:---
(1) Exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, or
(2) Failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it, or
(3) Acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
10. Where the above conditions are not satisfied the High Court would not interfere in its revisional jurisdiction. Section 115(1)(c), C.P.C. Is only applicable to the erroneous exercise of jurisdiction and not to erroneous decision. If a Court has jurisdiction to decide, it can, decide one way or the other.
The learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs has miserably failed to convince me that the lower forums had no jurisdiction to decide the matter or that their decisions are against some mandatory provision of law, and thus, a nullity and accordingly liable to be set aside.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also failed to show/point out that the judgments of the lower Courts are the out-come/result of either misreading or non-reading of evidence or that the same were otherwise arbitrary or perverse.
12. Besides, the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under section 115,1C C.P.C. Is discretionary in nature and, therefore, the High Court will not interfere under this section to correct every irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction except where grave injustice or hardship would result on account of its non-interference. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to convince me as to what type of grave injustice has been caused or what type of hardship would be faced by the petitioners if the revisional jurisdiction is not exercised.
13. Both the trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court, have discussed the evidence thoroughly in their judgments and have given valid reasons for their conclusions.
14. This revision petition for reasons stated above, is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed alongwith Civil Miscellaneous.