This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908) has been preferred against the judgment dated 13-2-2002 passed by learned District Judge, Kohat in Civil Appeal No,37/13 of 1999, upholding the judgment and decree dated 20-5-1999 passed by learned Civil Judge, Kohat in Civil Suit No,196/i of 1998.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that Isa Khan plaintiff-petitioner instituted suit against Khan Gul defendant-respondent for declaration-cum-permanent injunction to the effect that defendant-respondent be restrained permanently from interfering in the possession of land measuring 13 Kanals represented by Khasra No,659 in Mauza Janek, District Kohat, by raising construction or to take illegal possession thereof. According to the plaintiff- petitioner he is in possession of suit land as a 'Hissadar'; that defendant-respondent has no concern with suit land and that defendant-respondent has started interfering in possessory rights which has necessitated the filing of suit.
3. The defendant-respondent appeared in Court and resisted the suit on various grounds legal as well as factual. The learned trial Judge formulated eleven issues out of the pleadings of the parties.
For the purpose of this revision petition we are concerned with Issues Nos.1 and 10 which are to the following effect:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action?
(10) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for?
4. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective contention, the learned trial Judge took up Issues Nos.1 and 10 together and proceeded to hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession and ownership in respect of suit land and that agreement to sell (Exh.P.W.1/1) dated 27-6-1990 has not been satisfactorily proved. Resultantly, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20-5-1999 which was maintained in appeal.
5. Mr. Ajmal Khan, Advocate for the petitioner has seriously attacked the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and contended with vehemence that sufficient evidence oral as well as documentary was available on the record to substantiate the claim of the petitioner but the evidence was totally ignored and kept aside. The learned counsel added that the impugned judgment and decree were recorded in a mechanical manner without application of judicious mind and in total disregard to the material on file, which has resulted in manifest injustice. The submissions of the learned counsel are devoid of merit. It is true that if the concurrent findings of the Courts below are the result of misreading of evidence on the record, it becomes the duty of High Court/Revisional Forum to set the wrong right in accord with its jurisdiction under section 155, C.P.C. But in the instant case, I do not fmd that any error in reading the evidence has been committed by the trial Court or the Appellate Court. The learned counsel has remained unable to pinpoint any material irregularity or illegality justifying setting aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Mst. Rehmat Noor v. Halim Shah and two others (PLD 1986 Peshawar 154), Sardar Muhammad Zaman Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. (2001 CLC 1041) and Irshad Ali and another v.
Munawar Khan (2001 CLC 1899).
6. The upshot of the above discussion is, that no illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts below having been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition fails which is hereby dismissed in limine.