Instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 16-9-1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Lodhran whereby he confirmed the judgment, and decree, dated 13-10-1996 passed by the Civil Judge, Lodhran, dismissing the suit-of the plaintiff/petitioner.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for possession under section 9 of Specific Relief Act which was resisted by the defendants/respondents. The trial Court framed as many as 10 issues and thereafter, the plaintiff/petitioner examined himself as P.W.1, brought on record the statement of Khurshid Ahmad P.W.2 and Muhammad Iqbal as P.W.3. He also produced copies of Khasra Girdawari Exhs.P.1. To 3 and copy of judgment, dated 12-5-1980 Exh.P.4. In rebuttal defendants/respondents examined D.W.1 Muhammad Siddique and brought on record documents Exh.D.I to Exh.D.6.
3. After going through the evidence produced by the parties the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 13-10-1996. The plaintiff/petitioner felt aggrieved of the said judgment and decree and assailed the same by way of filing a revision petition which also met the same fate as is evident from judgment and decree, dated 16-9-1997. The plaintiff/petitioner has felt aggrieved of the said judgments and decrees of the Court below and has filed the instant writ petition.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. The stand of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner is that trial Court has not appreciated the evidence which has been brought on record by the plaintiff/petitioner. His contention is that trial Court has non-suited him simply on the ground that he failed to prove his possession over the Ihata since 1974, without realising that his dispossession from the Ihata relates to 23-6-1989 and the material date is not 1974, that as per copies of Khasra Girdawari, his possession over the disputed Ihata stands proved from 1980 onward till 23-6-1989 when he was ousted from the Ihata, that Courts below have not adverted to the target date of dispossession i.e. 23-6-1989, but have engaged themselves to the assertion of the other party that he (plaintiff/petitioner) was not in possession of the plot/Ihata in 1974, that even if it is assumed that petitioner had failed to prove his possession prior to 1974 even then the question to be resolved did not pertain to his occupation prior to 1974 but it pertains to his ouster from the Ihata on 23-6-1989. He, thus, submits that the Courts below have not looked into evidence produced by the plaintiff/petitioner as such the orders are liable to be struck down by invoking its Constitutional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Muhammad Zahoor and another v. Lal Muhammad and 2 others 1988 SCM R 322 and Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others PLD 1987 SC 447.
6. The plaintiff/petitioner filed suit for possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act claiming that he had been coming in possession of said Ihata since 1974 and was dispossessed from the said plot/Ihata on 23-6-1989. His said assertion was controverted by the other party who claimed its possession over said plot/Ihata since 1978. The trial Court, accordingly framed 10 issues out of the pleadings of the parties. Both the parties produced evidence in support of its stand. The trial Court scanned the evidence produced by the parties, but finding no force in the contention of the plaintiff/petitioner dismissed his suit vide judgment and decree, dated 13-10-1996 which was upheld by the revisional Court vide its judgment and decree, dated 16-9-1997.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to exercise its Constitutional jurisdiction and to interfere in the findings recorded by the Courts below merely on the ground that both the Courts below have not appreciated evidence in its true perspective and has placed reliance on the authorities referred above. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel, as judgments cannot be set at naught only on the ground of non-appraisal of evidence while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction. The authorities referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner contain that while invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction, orders passed by Civil Courts falling within the ambit of their jurisdiction be not interfered with unless such orders are wholly void or coram non judice. In view of the dictum laid down in the authorities, the only point to be seen is if the orders impugned in this writ petition are wholly void or coram non judice. If the orders impugned in this writ petition are touched on the touch stone as laid down in the authorities referred, it is clear that neither these are A void nor coram non judice. Thus, it is proved that impugned judgments and, decrees have been passed in accordance with law. There is no force in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.