1. ZIA PERWEZ, J. -- This revision application is directed against the judgment of learned 1st Additional District Judge (Central), Karachi dated 18.5.1993 whereby the Civil Appeals Nos. 5/1992 and 6/1992 filed by the applicant were dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant instituted the Suit No. 472/1971 for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with his possession on Plot No. 6/4-A and the Adjoining Plot No. 6/4 Liaquatabad, Karachi. Plaintiff/applicant pleaded that plot No. 6/4 was divided in the two equal portions of 45 sq yards each, the portion adjacent to plot of the applicant was occupied by Mr. Sardar Khan and the other by his brother Aziz Khan. Sardar Khan, out of his subdivided portion measuring 45 sq. yards rented out half of this plot measuring 22-112 sq. yards to the applicant on rent of As 20/- per month. Thereafter, the applicant affixed a door in the adjacent plot by pulling down a portion of the well separating his plot No 6/4-A and the portion obtained on rent with the condition that the party terminating the rent agreement would restore the premises by removing the door and re-erecting the. wall. Respondent No. 1 entered upon premises, after Sardar Khan left the same. The applicant claims to have requested respondent No. 1 to close the said door and on failure instituted Suit No. 472/1971. This was followed by institution of a Suit No. 845/1971 by respondent No. 1 against the applicant denying the existence of Plot No. 614-A and also challenging the validity of the agreement and receipt both dated 1.3.1971. The two suits were consolidated by the order of the learned Trial Court dated 12.8.1971 with Suit No. 472/1971 as the leading suit. The plaintiff/applicant examined himself as Ex.1 and two witnesses Ahfaz as Ex.7 and Muhammad Ilyas as Ex.9 and exhibited documents in, support of his contentions. Abdul Majeed, respondent No. 1/defendant in Suit No. 472/1971 appeared in evidence and examined himself as Ex.10. He has also examined witnesses Athar Hussain and Hamid Ali of KMC as Ex.1 1 and 12 respectively who have exhibited documents to prove the case of the defendant/respondent No. 1, After site inspection .carried out twice by the learned Judges of the Trial Court, the consolidated suits were decided on 31.3.1992 whereby Suit No. 472/1971 filed by the applicant was decreed while Suit No. 845/1971 was dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 233/1992 against the said judgment and decree was dismissed for none prosecution on 19.10.1983. The application for restoration was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karachi vide order dated 14.3.1984. However, on revision preferred against the same before this Court vide order dated 30.8.1990 passed in Civil Revisions Nos. 201/1984 and 202/1984 the case was remanded before the learned Trial Court for decision according to law after allowing the parties to lead additional evidence in support of their stands. After recording of further evidence of one Saeed Khan of KMC as Ex.13 and addition of Abdul Shahid as a co-plaintiff in Suit No. 845/1971 to whom the plot.was gifted by his father, the learned Trial Court dismissed Suit No. 472/1971 filed by the applicant while Suit No. 845/1971 was decreed in favour of the respondents. Appeals Nos. 5/1992 and 6/1992 arising out of the same Were also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 18.5.1993. Aggrieved by the same the applicant has preferred the revision application.
3. Mr. Mirza Saeed Baig in support of his contentions has argued that the learned Trial Court after framing the additional issue. instead of confining to decision of the additional issue. has reopened the entire case on all issues. His, contentions are that the learned Trial Court proceeded to decide the same without any legal justification leading to finding reversing the earlier one. In his written arguments learned counsel also raised several legal grounds to show that this application is maintainable on the point of maintainability, limitation, validity of the document of gift and that estoppel and waiver are not attracted. He has also placed reliance on the 'cases of Karnal-ud-Din v Abdul Ham& and others (1989 ALD 251), Muhammad Shah V. Aziz Akbar and 4 others (NI) 1985 Peshawar 142), Zar Shah v. Faza/ Ahmad (PLO' 1986 Peshawar 159), Hail Ilahi Bakhsh v. Noor Muhammad and others (PLD 1985 S.C. 41), Kazim All Shah v United Bank Limited MLR 1988 Civil 136), Hakim Muhammad Buta and another v. Habib Ahmad and others (PLJ 1985 SC 186): Mr. S.M. Aamir Naqvi, learned counsel for the respondents,. has also filed his written -arguments in which he has argued that this is a case of concurrent findings and does not call for interference in the findings passed on the facts. He has also placed reliance on the cases of Mst. Shumbal Begum v. Mst. Gulzal Begum and 3 others (1994 SCMR 818), HaijiMu hammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994 S.C. 291), Ms t. Sharifan. through Legal Heirs and another v. Nazimuddin and another (PLD 1994 Karachi 135) and Miss Faryal Wall and others v. District Magistrate and others (1993 CLC 60).
4. I have considered the written arguments filed by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the orders/judgments- of the two Courts below it appears that the points.raised by learned counsel for the applicant have already been considered by the learned Trial Court. The question of-limitation does not arise as the proceedings were already pending since 1971 and subsequent knowledge followed by amendment of the plaint does not make the suit barred by limitation.
5. In case Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another (PLD 1970 S.C. 139) it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-- "It may also be pointed out, with all respect to the learned Single Judge, that he was exercising a limited jurisdiction in revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code which is meant primarily for correcting errors made by the subordinate.Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction and not those which are made in their discretion, unless the discretion is found to have been exercised fancifully or arbitrarily. This was obviously not the position in the present case in which the learned.
6. Additional District Judge has chosen to exercise his discretion on sound principles of law, consistently with the facts and circumstances of the case." in case of Hail Zareen Khan and 1 1 others v. Mureed Khan and 4 others (1995 CLC 1794) it has been held by this Court that it is a settled principle of law that powers of the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section. 115, CPC are very limited. On reappraisal of the evidence even if a different view is possible, the High Court cannot substitute its own view and upset the finding' of facts concurrently arrived at by the Courts below. Such findings can only be interfered with if the Courts below have misread the evidence on record or have committed any jurisdictional error.
7. In case of Abdul Khalid v. Rashim Ahmed (1999 MLD 2156) it has been held that Section 115, CPC applies to cases involving illegal assumption, non-exercise or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. It cannot be invoked against conclusion's of. law or facts, which, do not, in any way, effect the jurisdiction of the Court, no matter, however, erroneous, wrong or perverse, the decision might be either on a question of fact or law, unless the decision involves a matter of jurisdiction. An erroneous conclusion of law or fact is liable to be corrected in appeal, but, revision will not be competent on such a ground, unless in arriving at such conclusion an error of law, has been committed.
8. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel are distinguishable as no case of misreading or non-reading of, evidence is made out in the instant case as additional evidence was recorded and the matter was reconsidered on the basis of additional evidence, the learned Courts rightly decided the issues which does not effect the validity of their decisions. The learned Courts arrived at concurrent findings of fact .after considering the evidence available .on record which has the effect of turning down the case and documents of the applicant. This does not go to show that the learned Courts did not consider the same. In view of the facts of the present case only one set of documents could be sustained.' Sufficient evidence as to non-existence of Plot No. 6/4A in the record of KMC and the pending cases against the signatory of the lease deed executed in favour of the applicant show that in arriving at the conclusion the learned Trial Courts have considered the relevant evidence available on record and is supported by the .respective concurrent findings. No ground for interference and exercise.of discretion under Section 115, CPC is made out.
9. In view of the above as no case is made out on the ground of any material irregularity or exercise- of jurisdiction not vested in the Courts or failure of exercise of jurisdiction vested in it and the impugned judgment does not call for any interference or exercise of discretion on any point of law in this case of concurrent finding. Accordingly, this Revision Application is dismissed.