MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of learned Division Bench of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar against the judgment dated 16-6-1994 whereby his Writ Petition No,613 of 1994 was dismissed in limine.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Mian Haider Khan appellant, instituted a suit on 8-8- 1988 against Mustareen and others respondents under the PATA Regulation No,II of 1975 for a decree for grant of perpetual injunctions so as to restrain the respondents from interfering in the flow of water towards the land owned by the appellant. It appears that the suit of the appellant was dismissed on 7-10-1992 on the basis of the unanimous award of the Jirga against the appellant. The appeal filed thereagainst also met with the same faith vide judgment dated 30-1- 1994 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner-I, Malakand, at Saidu Sharif.
3. The learned counsel representing the appellant before the learned High Court had contended that the judgments of the Courts below constituted under the PATA Regulation No,II of 1975 were not sustainable under the law, inasmuch as the same were the result of misreading of evidence and failure to take into consideration the material evidence brought on the record. It was further contended that learned Division Bench of the High Court also erred to rely on the award of Jirga which was not based on any evidence.
4. The learned Division Bench of the High Court dismissed writ petition in limine with the following reasoning:- "We have perused the record of the case appended with this petition. Evidence was led by the parties in the case and on evaluation of the same unanimous award of the Jirga was delivered resulting into dismissal of the suit of the petitioner. There is no misreading of evidence in the case.
The suit and the appeal of the petitioner merited dismissal under the law and procedure applicable in the case. Therefore, this petition is also dismissed in limine." Ch. Waseem Ahmad, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant has reiterated before us the contentions which had been raised before the learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court. The question of the right of the appellant to have the flow of water towards the land of the appellant was one of the fact which not only the hierarchy under the PATA Regulation II of 1975 decided against the appellant but even learned High Court did not find any misreading or the failure of the forum under the PATA Regulation II of 1975 to consider any material evidence. Neither learned High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction nor this Court ordinarily interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Special Tribunals unless there is any clear misreading of evidence or any failure on their other part to take into consideration any other material made available on the record. In the instant case no infirmity of the kind has been noticed by the learned High Court.
6. For the above reasons, we find no merits in this appeal which is hereby dismissed accordingly.