JUDGMENT - MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J. -- Through the filing of this revision petition, the petitioner/defendant has called in question the judgment and decree dated 7.9.1995, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, dismissed his appeal and maintained the judgment and decree dated 6.3.1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jhang, whereby a suit for possession, filed by respondent No. 1, was decreed.
2. The relevant facts, leading to the filing of the present revision petition are that respondent No. 1, filed a suit for possession of plot measuring 5 marlas against the petitioner claiming to be the owner of the land in question by virtue of a registered sale-deed dated 13.1.1981 executed in his favour by Mst; Khurshid Begum. He asserted in the plaint that after the execution of the sale-deed, he was handed over the possession land by Mst. Khurshid Begum, vendor, but thereafter the petitioner encroached upon the plot in question forcibly after obtaining a temporary injunction in a suit for permanent injunction, filed by the petitioner against the respondents. It has further been submitted that the petitioner filed an application for demarcation to the Revenue Officer, who demarcated the property and reported that respondent No.. 1 is entitled for the possession of plot in question. The said suit was contested by the petitioner/defendant by way of filing the written statement thereby taking factual and legal objection which culminated to the framing of the issues and the learned Civil Judge after recording the evidence of the parties proceeded to decree the suit for possession in favour of respondent No. 1. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal, but without any success, as the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, by virtue of his judgment and decree dated 7.9.1995, hence, the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that both the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees have mis-read the evidence on record inasmuch as; the material pieces of evidence have not even been read, hence, both the judgments are not sustainable in law. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents, while supporting the impugned judgments has contended that the findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below are not liable to be interfered by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
4. In order to evaluate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I have examined the judgments passed by both the Courts below. Perusal of the said judgments amply manifest that both the Courts below have dealt with the matter legally and justly and after taking in-depth study of the evidence on record proceeded to pass the judgments. Both the Courts below have .decided the matter while giving their findings on each and every issue separately, discussed oral as well as documentary evidence with reference to the record where it appears necessary and have arrived at a concurrent conclusion that respondent No. 1 is entitled for the possession of the plot in question. The judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge appears to be more comprehensive as he has dealt with every aspect of the case with reference to the evidence on record. Both the judgments are well-reasoned, legal, unexceptionable and have been rendered after taking into due consideration the evidence on record. I have no reasons to differ with the findings arrived at by both the Courts below as they are apt to the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgments do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, which is basically meant for rectifying the errors committed by the subordinate Courts.
5. It is settled law that the findings on questions of-fact or law recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction unless those findings suffer from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularities. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Rafique Vs. Aamer Shahzad and others (PLJ 2000 Lahore 157).
6., The concurrent findings of facts were recorded by both the Courts below which are based on proper appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, produced by the respective parties before the learned Trial Court. No case of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence has been made out, neither any legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel even during the arguments, nor illegal exercise of jurisdiction nor failure of exercise of jurisdiction by both the Courts below has even been attributed.
7. It is settled law that concurrent findings of facts, based on evidence, are not liable to be interfered in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C. Reliance is placed on Abdul Rahim and another Vs. Mst. Janatay Bibi and others (2000 SCM R 346), Anwar Zaman and 5 others Vs. Bahadur Sher and others (2000 SCM R 431) + (2000 CLR 757), Aziz Ullah Khan and others Vs. Gul Muhammad Khan (2000 SCM R 1647), Altaf Hussain Vs. Abdul Hameed and Abdul Majeed through legal heirs and another (2000 SCMR 514) + (KLR 2000 (SC Pak) 94), Haji Noor Muhammad' Vs. Abdul Ghani and 2 others (2000 SCM R 314) + (2000 CLR 781) and Haji Muhammad Din Vs. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994 SC 291).
8. As a result of above discussion, the revision petition has no merits and while confirming the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, I hereby dismiss the revision petition, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.