' Abdur Rehman, predecessor-ininterest of respondents Nos.3 to 6 alongwith respondent No,7 filed a suit for possession against the petitioner and respondents Nos.1, 2, 8 and 9. It was alleged in the plaint that Shop bearing No,5/134 located in Pasrur Town was originally an evacuee property. One Nabi Bakhsh purchased the same in an open auction on 3-9-1960 and P.T.D. Was issued in his name on 3-12-1963. The respondents/ plaintiffs purchased this property from Nabi Bakhsh through a registered sale-deed. Ahmad Din, respondent No,9 purchased a Khola located in Chawinda Town which was sold by him in favour of Bashir Ahmad who subsequently sold out in favour of the petitioner. It was asserted that the Shop bearing No,5/134 has got no concern with the property purchased by the petitioner/ defendant No,3. This property was in illegal possession of respondent No,9. The suit was contested by the petitioner as well as respondents Nos.8 and 9. The learned trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties decreed the suit in favour of respondents Nos.3 to 7 vide judgment/decree dated 14-10-1996. Feeling aggrieved by the abovesaid judgment/decree the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot vide judgment/ decree, dated 10-2-1988. Hence this civil revision.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. Therefore, this case is being decided as a notice case.
3. The admitted position on record is that the Shop bearing No,5/134 was owned by Choranji Shah, an evacuee. This .Property was put to auction and Mehtab Din was shown in possession of the same. Nabi Bakhsh was declared as successful bidder in auction and purchased this property. The P.T.D. Was also issued in his name. The said Nabi Bakhsh through a registered sale-deed, dated 30- 1-1973 sold out the same in favour of Asghar Ali and Abdur Rehman against a sum of Rs,1,000. The evacuee owner had four other shops, which were also located near the said Shop, bearing Nos.5/131, 5/132, 5/133 and 5/135. Ahmad Din respondent No,9 purchased a house through auction.
In Exh.P.2 this property is shown as Khola (house) bearing No,5/134 and P.T.D. Issued in the name of Ahmad Din wherein this property is described as a house. Ahmad Din through registered sale-deed Exh.D.3 sold out this property in favour of Bashir Ahmad, respondent No,8 who further sold the same in favour of present petitioner. It appears that inadvertently in both the sale-deeds this property was mentioned as shop. The evacuee owner of the Khola (house) as well as shop was the same namely Choranji Shah. From the perusal of record it is abundantly clear that Shop No,5/134 was 'purchased by Nabi Bakhsh in open auction on 3-9-1960 and a P.T.D. Was issued on 3-12-1963 whereas the Khola (house) bearing No,5/134 was put to auction and purchased "It is well-settled law that a concurrent finding of fact by two Courts below cannot be disturbed by the High Court in second civil appeal muchless in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Unless the two Courts below while recording the finding of fact have either misread the evidence or by Ahmad Din respondent on 22-1-1962. This auction was approved on 19-3-1964 and the P. T. D . Was issued on 13-11-1964, therefore, the perusal of these documents leaves no room of doubt that both the properties are separate and distinct one being shop and other is house. The matter was further clarified by demarcation proceedings which was conducted by Settlement Inspector on 27-2-1973 and approved by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 2-3-1973. The Shop bearing No,5/134 was shown in possession of Abdul Ghafoor, petitioner. This demarcation proceedings was conducted on the application submitted by Nabi Bakhsh the original transferee and was never challenged before any higher forum. Exh.P.3 is the copy of entries of C.S.C.-IV Register wherein Property No,5/134 transferred to Ahmad Din, respondent was described as house (khola). All these facts have been discussed by both the Courts below who reached a conclusion that the plaintiffs are lawful owners of the shop in dispute, hence they are entitled to obtain possession of the same.
This finding on Issues Nos.7 and 8 and the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on the other issues was affirmed by the learned appellate Court. This being concurrent finding of fact and based on cogent reason cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. In Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291, it was observed as under:-- "It is well settled law that a concurrent finding of fact by two Court below cannot be disturbed by the High Court in second civil appeal muchless in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction have ignored any material piece of evidence on record or the finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below is perverse. The jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact in revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Is still narrower. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Can only interfere with the orders of the subordinate Courts on the grounds that the Court below has assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in him, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law or that the Court below has acted with material irregularity affecting its jurisdiction in the case."
' In Sheikh Muhammad Bashir Ali and others v. Sufi Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din 1996 SCM R 813, it was observed as under:- "The above enunciation of the scope of the revisional power vesting in the High Court clearly shows that no interference was called for in this case and upsetting the conclusions of the Courts below virtually on the question of fact by way of reexamination of the evidence at revisional stage it has overstepped the limits or its jurisdiction."
' In Shah Gul and others v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others 1990 SCM R 110, the same view was taken.
In the instant case both the Courts below, have observed, after proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, that "it is clearly proved that disputed premises is a shop which is surrounded from both sides with other shops. Certainly disputed premises cannot be termed to be a place of house. Factually disputed premises are site of shop and it has been illegally occupied by Abdul Ghafoor " is eminently just and correct. Abdul Ghafoor admittedly purchased the property from Bashir Ahmad, who derived his title from Ahmad Din and from the documentary evidence available on record it is established beyond any shadow of doubt that Ahmad Din purchased a house and not a shop.
4. In view of what has been discussed above, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the judgment/decree passed by two Courts below which are just and correct. This revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs.