1. ' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---The above titled three petitions under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 have been preferred against the judgment, dated 18-7-2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in Civil Revisions Nos. 102/98, 103/98 and 104/98 arising out of separate (sic).
2. ' These petitions involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, the same are proposed to be disposed of through this single judgment.
3. ' The essential facts giving rise to these petitions are that Muhammad Suqlain, respondent in Civil Petitions Nos.2774 and 2775 of 2001 filed a suit wherein it was stated that the street passing in front of his house and in the back of the house of Fateh Khan, petitioner, was running from north to south and the flow of water in the said street was towards west but few days prior to the filing of suit the petitioner Fateh Khan put sand in the street which caused obstruction in the natural flow of water as a result of which the water entered into his house. In the suit, mandatory injunction was sought for removal of the obstruction from the street. The petitioner in these petitions also filed a suit wherein he stated that water flow in the street was from north to south which was obstructed by the respondent Muhammad Saglain, by way of blocking the street with some material on its eastern side and sought a decree for recovery of Rs,24,000 as damages with mandatory injunction for removal of the obstruction. The third suit was filed by Muhammad Iqbal, respondent in C.P.
4. No,2276 of 2001 on the similar facts as contained in the suit filed by Muhammad Suqlain and sought a decree for Rs,24,000 as damages with mandatory injunction for removal of obstruction made in the street by the present petitioner. The suits filed by Muhammad Saqlain and Muhammad Iqbal, respondents herein, were decreed whereas the suit filed by the present petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court through the consolidated judgment, dated 28-11-1995.
5. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the dismissal of his suit was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Attock, vide judgment, dated 16-12-1997. The petitioner invoked revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115, C.P.C. Through separate revision petitions which we disposed of through the common judgment under challenge.
6. ' The learned Single Judge in the High Court having discussed the evidence brought by the parties in support of their respective stands at the report of Local Commission, dismissed revision petitions with the observation that there was no ground to differ with the findings recorded by the Courts below and that the natural flow of water was from north to south which was evident from the site plan annexed with the plaint in the suit filed by the petitioner.
7. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that learned trial Judge having come to the conclusion that defendant in the suit filed the petitioner had created hindrance in the flow of water still non-suited the petitioner on technical grounds. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the Appellate Court as well as the revisional Court without attending the illegality committed by the learned trial Judge affirmed the judgment of the trial Court by dismissing the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner. In the nutshell, learned counsel submitted that the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge was self-conflicting and being the result of misreading of evidence, was not sustainable but unfortunately the Appellate Court as well as revisional Court having committed the same illegality failed to attend the case in its true prospect. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also perused the record with his assistance.
8. The factual controversy involved relating to the flow of water in the street and in consequence thereto the damage if any caused to parties has been elaborately dealt with by the High Court in the light of the evidence brought by them on the record and while confirming the concurrent findings of the Court of first instance and the Appellate Court on the relevant issue dismissed the revision petitions. Learned counsel without pointing out any misreading or non-reading of the evidence by the Courts below or by the High Court contended that his suit was dismissed without proper appreciation of the evidence available, on record. We are afraid, that concurrent findings of facts arrived at by three Courts cannot be interfered with by this Court through reappraisal of evidence. The finding of fact even if erroneous, cannot be challenged before this Court unless it is shown that same was the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence or was based on no evidence.
9. ' We having perused the record, find that the judgment of the High Court under challenge was not suffering from any legal or factual infirmity and would not call for interference. These petitions having no substance are dismissed and leave is refused.