1. ' By this civil revision application the applicant Abdul Sattar has sought following relief:-- ' "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to admit this revision to regular hearing and as such send for the R&Ps of F.C. Suit No,108 of 1982 of Senior Civil Judge, Naushero Feroze and of Appeal No,54 of 1987 from the Court of learned District Judge, Nawabshah and after perusal thereof and hearing the parties be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the Courts below and as such decree the suit of the applicant against the respondent, with cost throughout."
2. ' The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the application are that applicant is owner of house bearing Custodian No,IB/68, 68-A to D situated at Behria Town, Taluka Naushero Feroze. He purchased the same from Bashir Ahmed son of Rehmatullah resident of Shahpur Chakar by registered sale-deed dated 16-6-1979. It is further stated that prior to execution of sale-deed, Bashir Ahmed son of Rehmatullah executed an agreement of sale in favour of applicant in January, 1979. The formal possession of house was delivered by Bashir Ahmed son of Rehmatullah to applicant at the time of execution of sale-deed but it was encroached upon by the respondent.
3. The disputed premises was allegedly purchased by Bashir Ahmed from Settlement Department and such PTD was issued in his favour and the same was also delivered by him to applicant, The respondent mischievously in collusion with subordinate staff of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Nawabshah got the name of the father of Bashir Ahmed changed as Rehmatullah alias Bost Muhammad which is mentioned in PTD, This was arranged by respondent 1 to claim the suit property as his own. The portion of the property in question is in possession of applicant and major portion is in possession of respondent.
4. ' The case of applicant is that the respondents have no right, title or interest in the suit property and they are unauthorized trespassers of major portion of the suit property. The applicant also initiated rent proceedings but he failed to succeed.
5. ' The respondents in their written statement denied the assertion of the applicant. The respondent-1 stated that he is bona fide transferee of suit property and owner of the same. It was further averred that the applicant and his father Baja son of Yousuf are near relatives of respondent-1. About four years prior to filing of suit father of applicant, who was living at Shahpur Chakar District Sanghar with his son went to respondent-1. He requested respondent-1 to allow him to stay with him in a room of his house temporarily as his son is not maintaining him. He assured him that he will vacate the room as soon as arrangement of his accommodation is made or whenever it is required by the respondent-1. On this assurance and due to relationship, respondent accommodated Baja in one room of the house in question. In March, 1979 the respondent-1 asked Baja to vacate the room, to which he promised to vacate the same within two months. Subsequently, at the instance of some mischievous enemies of respondents, the Baja filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Naushero Feroz. In same year i.e, 1979 Baja propagated in Behria Town that the suit property has been purchased by his son from Bashir Ahmed. On this respondent-1 made enquiries from District Registrar, Nawabshah and it transpired that one Bashir Ahmed son of Rehmatullah claiming himself to be the owner of the house in question has sold the same to applicant in Rs,10,000. The respondent contacted Bashir Ahmed son of Rehmatullah in this context who showed complete ignorance about sale and further told him that he was taken by applicant to Nawab Shah where his thumb-mark was obtained on some document. Therefore, respondent-1 filed Family Court Suit No,200 of 1979 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah which was pending till the decision of appeal.
6. ' On the pleadings of parties, issues were framed by the trial Court and upon the evaluation of evidence adduced by the parties, suit of applicant was dismissed.
7. ' The applicant filed appeal and the same was also dismissed by District Judge, Nawab Shah. The operative part of the impugned judgment is reproduced hereinbelow in extenso:-- "Issues Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4.
8. ' The contention of the learned counsel that specific issue on the point of possession has not been framed, therefore, the matter may be remanded to the learned trial Court is devoid of any force as this is covered by Issues No,3 and has been suitably dealt with in the impugned judgment.
9. Notwithstanding this aspect, it is the case of the appellant that he purchased the suit property from Bashir Ahmed son of Rehmatullah and also challenged the claim of ownership of the respondent No, 1 . The sale agreement, on which the appellant has relied upon, has come on record as Exh.69. A plain reading regarding of this document makes it clear that it is not a genuine one and has not at all been proved in accordance with law. The evidence of P.W. Jamil, who allegedly is one of the attesting witnesses is unworthy of credit and also contradicts the appellant regarding the execution of the sale-deed. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly observed that the said document was managed one and that such document would not confer right, title or interest in favour of the appellant. On the other hand the respondent No,1 is admittedly holder of a valid PTD and his old possession also stands proved through the evidence. No witness from the Settlement Department has been summoned to prove the alleged mala fide, particularly when the appellant himself alleged that mischief was done by the respondent No,1 in collusion with the staff of the office of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Nawabshah. After going through the entire evidence. I am convinced that the findings of the learned trial Court on these issues require no interference and, in fact, these were not seriously challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant as well. Issues Nos.5 and 6 not pressed ' The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal having no merits is dismissed with costs."
10. ' I have heard Mr. Basharat Ahmed Jatt learned counsel on behalf of applicant and Mr. Abdul Sattar Kazi learned counsel on behalf of respondents.
11. The revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Is discretionary and revisional Court can only interfere when the subordinate Court exercise jurisdiction which was not vested in it or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. Moreover Court either acted illegally in exercise of its jurisdiction or with material irregularity.
12. ' The perusal of material placed on record shows that the trial Court as well as Appellate Court has given cogent reasons for raising adverse inference regarding genuineness of documents on the strength and proper evaluation of evidence adduced and material placed on record. The findings arrived are in no way based upon misreading or non-reading of evidence. The same are not without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction and in no way suffer from any illegality or material irregularity.
13. The contention that the trial Court as well as Appellate Court failed to consider each issue separately, therefore, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside is misconceived. It is well- settled that where certain issues are inextricably linked with each other and those were considered together, such consideration was not at all violative of the mandate contained in Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C. In this context reference can be made to the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in case of Azizullah Khan and others v. Gul Muhammad Khan and others reported in 2000 SCM R 1647.
14. ' It is incumbent upon a party seeking relief under revisional jurisdiction to show that the impugned judgments are contrary to law and facts. Nothing has been pointed out from which it could be said or deduced that the impugned judgments are perverse, arbitrary or contrary to law and facts. The right of a party cannot be vanished merely on technicalities. Apart from this there are concurrent findings of two Courts below. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by two Courts below could not he interfered or disturbed without strong reasons merely on the ground that on reappraisal of evidence different view is possible. In this context I am fortified by the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in case of Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others reported in 2000 SCM R 431.
15. ' For the foregoing reasons, the instant revision application stands dismissed with no order as to costs.