' The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent No,4 obtained loan from the appellants amounting to Rs,26,965 in the year 1972; respondent No,8/defendant No,4 also executed mortgage deed in favour of appellants in the year 1972 qua his land measuring 266 Kanals and 30 Marlas. Respondent No,8/defendant No,4 did not repay the loan of the appellants, consequently the land was attached by the appellants on 24-3-1972, land of respondent No,8/ defendant No,4 was put in auction and the auction was held on 12-4-1972. Umar Wade predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 7 participated in the auction proceedings, his bid was highest, therefore, the same was accepted. The predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 7 deposited Rs,33,500, thereafter, auction was confirmed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 14-4-1972.
Respondent No,8/defendant No,4 challenged the auction proceedings before this Court in Writ Petition No,1164 of 1974 which was accepted vide Judgment, dated 17-2-1985 on the ground that Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies was not competent to confirm the auction proceedings.
Umar Wada predecessor-in interest of respondents Nos.1 to 7 filed a suit for recovery of Rs,33,500 and interest and damages amounting to Rs,66,500. The suit was decreed qua the principal amount and interest and the damages were refused vide Judgment and decree, dated 6-6-1995. The appellants being aggrieved filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Multan, who entrusted the same to learned Addl. District Judge, Multan who dismissed the appeal vide his Judgment and decree, dated 14-10-1998 hence, the present second appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that predecessor-in interest of respondents Nos.1 to 7 have not demanded the amount from the appellants. The appellants never refused to re- pay the amount to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 7. The predecessor-in interest of respondents Nos.1 to 7 waited the decision of aforesaid writ petition filed by respondent No,8/defendant No,4 voluntarily, therefore, both the Courts below wrongly awarded interest to the appellants without adverting to this aspect of the case. It is further contended that the appellants deposited the amount in suspense account and the appellants did not get any benefit out of the amount deposited by the predecessor-in interest of the appellants, but both the Courts below did not apply their mind towards this aspect of the case; that both the Courts below wrongly decided Issues Nos.4 and 9; that Judgment of both the Courts below is the result of misreading and non- reading of the record. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that Judgment of both the Courts below is violative of Holy Qur'an and Sunnah read with Article 2A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as the charge of 'Ribbah' is against the Injunctions of Islam.
Reliance is placed upon 1992 FSC 445.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that 'Ribbah' is against the Injunctions of Islam, merits dismissal simply on the ground in view of Article 203-G of the Constitution, this Court has got no jurisdiction to dilate upon the question of 'Ribbah'. Secondly, the judgment of Federal Shariat Court relied upon by the appellants' counsel is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court and by virtue of Proviso of Article 203-D(2) of the Constitution, the operation of the order is held in abeyance. The question of interest has been considered by this Court in detail and laid down the principal that the trial Court is well within its 'rights to impose interest qua the amount of the predecessor-in-interest remained with the appellants PLD 1998 Lah.
20. It is admitted position that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 7 participated in the auction proceedings and his bid was accepted being highest. The auction proceedings were conducted and confirmed by the incompetent authority of the appellants, therefore, predecessor- in-interest of respondents should not be penalized by the act of public functionary who did not conduct the auction proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 and rules framed thereunder. This fact is established on the record as the auction proceedings were set aside by this Court on this ground. The learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out any infirmity committed by both the Courts below. It is also settled proposition of law that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact against the appellants and this Court has very limited jurisdiction while exercising powers under section 100, C.P.C. To disturb the findings of fact of both the Courts below unless and untill the same suffer from any legal infirmity or result of misreading and non-reading of record. As mentioned above, learned counsel has failed to point out any infirmity committed by both the Courts below and also misreading and non-reading of the record, therefore, the findings of both the Courts below are upheld.
' In view of for what has been discussed above, this appeal has no merits and the same is dismissed.