By way of filing instant Civil Revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), Khanzada son of Abdul Ghaffar, resident of Mulyano Banda, Teshil Lal Qilla, District Dir Payan, petitioner, has brought under challenge the propriety and legality of judgment and decree, dated 22-12-2001 of learned Zilla Qazi/District Judge, Timargara passed in Civil Appeal No. 89/13 of 2000 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree announced by the learned Aala Illaqa Qazi/Senior Civil Judge, Timargara on 21-4-2000 in Civil Suit No. 140/1 of 1999.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision are, that Khanzada plaintiff-petitioner instituted suit against Bahadarullah and his son Najibullah, residents of Master Abad, Tehsil Lal Qilla, District Dir, defendants-respondents, seeking a declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the petitioner was exclusive owner of 'Chashmai Aab' flowing in his lands in Mulyano Banda; that the defendants-- respondents had no concern with it and that defendants- respondents be restrained permanently to use the water of the Chashma' in question to irrigate their lands.
3. The defendants-respondents in their joint written statement resisted the suit on all grounds legal as well as factual and claimed to have been using the water of the Chashma' for irrigation purposes since time immemorial. They maintained that the Chashma' is situated in ' Khwar Qudrati' and all inhabitants of the locality have equal rights over it. In view of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Judge formulated as many as six issues.
4. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the learned trial Judge decided Issues Nos. 2 to 4 and 5, 6 jointly and came to the conclusion that the Chashma' in question is situated in ' Khwar Qudrati' that inhabitants of the locality had been using the water of the same and that the plaintiff-petitioner has not been able to establish his exclusive possession over it. Having held so, the suit of the plaintiff --petitioner was dismissed through judgment and decree, dated 21-4-2000 maintained in appeal by judgment, dated 22-12-2001.
5. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Salar Muhammad Ayub, Advocate strenuously contended that the judgments and decrees passed by Aala Illaqa Qazi/Senior Civil Judge and Zilla Qazi/ District Judge, Timargara respectively, are in excess of their jurisdiction and as such are ultra vires, null and void. The learned counsel attempted to argue that material brought on record in support of the petitioner's claim has not been properly considered and evaluated which has adversely affected the rights of the petitioner. The learned counsel added that the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below suffer from gross misreading and non-reading of evidence and conclusions drawn are erroneous and fallacious. The learned counsel also submitted that the judgments and decrees in question have been recorded in a mechanical way without application of judicial mind and the same are not in consonance with the requirement of law contained in Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C. And Order 41, rule 31, C.P.C. The grievance of the learned counsel is that the trial Court having formulated six issues, was required to state its findings or decisions, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue and the omission on the part of the Court to do so has resulted in manifest injustice. The trial Court, he added, has disregarded the mandatory provisions of Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C. And, therefore, has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregularity. The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is competent to make such order as in the case as it thought fit. The learned counsel went on to say that in view of the requirements of Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C., it is very much clear that in the instant case the learned Appellate Court has not given reasons for its decision on each separate issue framed by the trial Court, and therefore, the observation of the Appellate Court has no force in view of the rules laid down by the law and from the perusal of judgments and decrees it extends an impression that the two Courts below had only observed formality inasmuch as they have not fully applied their mind and it is well settled principle of law that the characteristics of a good judgment is that it must be self-evident and self-- explanatory. In other words it must contain reasons that justify conclusions arrived at and these reasons should be such that a disinterested reader can find them convincing or at least reasonable. The submissions of the learned counsel are not tenable. He has not been able to point out any misreading or non --reading of evidence, detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. The mere assertion of the learned counsel that judgments and decrees of the Courts below are the outcome of misreading and non-reading of evidence, without a positive attempt on his part to substantiate the same, is of no consequence. The learned counsel has also not been able to show that consolidated decision on Issue Nos.2 to 4 and 5 and 6 has in any manner prejudiced the cause of the petitioner. The matter has been dealt with carefully and in view of the failure on the part of the petitioner to prove his claim, his suit has been dismissed for valid reasons which Were maintained in appeal.
6. It is well-settled law that a concurrent finding of fact by two Courts below cannot be disturbed by the High Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C., unless the two Courts below while recording the finding of facts have either misread the evidence or have ignored any material piece of evidence on record or the finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below is perverse. The jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact in revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Is still narrower. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Can only interfere with the orders of the subordinate Courts on the grounds, that the Courts below has assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in it, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law or that the Court below has acted with material irregularity effecting its jurisdiction in the case. Abdul Hameed v. Ghulam Mohammed and others (1987 SCM R 1005), Muhammad Bux v. Muhammad Ali (1984 SCM R 504), Haji Muhammad Zaman v.
Zafar Ali Khan and others (PLD 1986 SC 88) and Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mehmood Khan (PLD 1970 SC 139). In the last-cited ruling, following observations were made:-- "Revisional powers under section 115, Civil Procedure Code are primarily intended for correcting errors made by subordinate Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction. Also ordinarily erroneous decisions of fact are not revisable, except in cases where the decision is based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence or is so perverse that grave injustice would result therefrom."
7. For the foregoing reasons, finding no substance in this Civil Revision I dismiss the same in limine.
Q.M.H./M.A.K./618/P