' Sultan, respondent No,1 herein brought a. Suit for declaration against the petitioners and respondents Nos.2 to 14 in respect of land measuring 17 Kanals and 5 Marlas for ownership on the basis of sale from the original owners (defendants Nos.1, 2 and 8). It was asserted that the petitioners were wrongly claiming themselves to be the owners on the basis of Mutation No,754, dated 18-1-1980 which was fictitious and bogus. Different sets of defendants flied their respective written statement. The suit was mainly contested by the present petitioners who pleaded that they were the prior owners on the strength of decree, dated 2-5-1978 and that the plaintiff entered into the sale transaction in spite of knowledge of the earlier decree and the ownership of the petitioners. The divergent pleadings gave rise to number of Issues. It also seems that at one stage application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was filed by respondents Nos.10 and 11 calling in question the decree, dated 2-5-1978. The trial Court decided to try the application along with the suit and framed additional Issue No,7-A to the effect as to whether decree, dated 2-5-1978 was liable to be recalled. After the review of evidence, the trial Court on 16-11-1987 decreed the suit A and on appeal by the petitioner, this decree was upheld on 26-5-1991. This is the revision by the unsuccessful defendants.
2. In support of the revision, learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly addressed arguments questioning the decree, dated 2-5-1978, which was based upon an arbitration award. He also contended that the mutation in favour of the petitioners was prior in time and, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent knew of the sale in favour of the petitioner. The above argument has been rebutted by supporting the impugned decree. It has been argued by learned counsel for the decree holders that there being concurrent findings of fact, the same cannot be interfered with in the revision.
3. The two judgments have been examined. The learned appellate Court has reviewed the evidence extensively to come to the conclusion that petitioners and defendants Nos.3 to 7 were aware of the earlier sale and in spite of it, they purchased the suit land. This is the finding of the trial Court also No cogent reason has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners to interfere in the above concurrent finding. It may be noted that Scope for interference in revision against the concurrent finding is extremely limited. In fact judicial pronouncements go to the extent that even a wrong conclusion of fact cannot be interfered with unless it be shown that the conclusions of fact have been arrived at in utter disregard of material evidence or misreading of the same. As stated above learned counsel has not been able to point out any disregard of evidence or misreading of the same.
4. Attempt by learned counsel to attack the arbitration award and the consequential decree, dated 2-5-1978 is fruitless. The said decree attained finality. Even the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was dismissed for non-prosecution, as stated by learned counsel himself. The decree, dated 2-5-1978 cannot be 'subjected to attack in collateral proceedings, like the one arising out of the present suit.
5. In the absence of any illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the two Courts, this revision is without merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.