1. ' This revision is directed against the order of VIIth Additional District Judge Karachi South, dated 4- 2-1996. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:-- ' "The plaintiff witness Muhammad Inam Khan produced bill of lading and invoice in respect of suit consignment which disclose the weight and value of the consignment in suit. There is survey report produced by the respondent No,1 which also discloses that survey was carried out by surveyor and survey report discloses that consignment was discharged in damaged condition from the ship, and thus, it cannot be said that suit consignment was clear without holding the survey when survey report has come on record. The documentary evidence in the shape of survey report fully supports the case of respondent No,1 that consignment was discharged in damaged condition. The respondent No,1 had paid the claim of the consignee and consignee have executed letter of subrogation in favour of respondent No,1 and as such respondent No,1 stepped into the shoes of the consignee and as such they are entitled to claim the amount on account of loss suffered to them for which defendants are responsible to pay the loss of suit consignment. The contention of learned counsel for appellant that since the consignee was not examined hence respondent No,1 is not entitled to file suit for damages has no force as through letter of subrogation the respondent No,1 stepped into the shoes of consignee and as such he is entitled to receive the damages.
2. ' In view of my findings on the above issues I find that judgment and decree of trial Court do not require any interference and, therefore, same is upheld."
3. ' The learned Advocate for the appellant has relied on decisions reported in 1997 CLC 1231 and 1996 CLC 673. This decision has been submitted on the point that even if there are concurrent findings, the High Court in its Revisional Jurisdiction under section 115 can reverse them if these findings are based on erroneous view.
4. ' This decision is not applicable because the concurrent findings are pased on sound reasons. One of the arguments on behalf of the applicant is that the Courts below had passed the impugned judgment/decrees against all the Defendants without holding any of the defendants liable for the alleged loss to the subject consignment. This argument cannot be appreciated in view of finding of learned II-Senior Civil Judge on Issues Nos.7 and 8 which is as under:-- ' "Regarding Issues Nos.7 and 8 plaintiff examined P.W.3 a Custom representative who has produced the Custom Bond Exh.P.19, this bond contains that the agent is also liable for the loss suffered by the consignee. It is an admitted position that defendants Nos.2 and 3 have been acted for defendant No,1 and the Vessel Canopus II arrived under the Agency of defendant No,2, therefore, the defendant No,2 are also liable jointly with other defendants for the loss suffered by the consignees jointly and severally. In this respect I placed my reliance on PLD 1960 Karachi page 89."
5. This Court can only intervene in revision if the case falls within the four corners defined by section 115, C.P.C. The lower Courts have exercised the jurisdiction vested in them by law. There is nothing to show that they have acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. It is not possible to disturb their findings in revision. This revision is, therefore, dismissed in limine.