' Shortly narrated the facts leading to the filing of instant civil revision are, that there was a dispute regarding landed properties between Sikh Khan and his brothers, respondents-plaintiffs and Rasool Khan and others, whereby Darya Khan, Saeed Khan and Ghaffar Khan, were appointed as Arbitrators to resolve the matter in accordance with the customs of the area and Injunctions of Islam. An amount of Rs,2,00,000 each or gold ornaments of the equivalent value were deposited by both the parties with the Arbitrators and the parties bound down themselves by written deed that on refusal of the Arbitrators' decision, the said security shall be forfeited by them. The petitioners- Arbitrators issued an Award which was not acceptable to respondents-plaintiffs and they refused to comply 'with the said decision and therefore, the security amount which was about 16 Tolas of gold ornaments was forfeited by the defendants-Arbitrators which caused annoyance to Saleh Khan and his brothers and they instituted suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bannu against Darya Khan and two others, defendants, for recovery of Rs,2,51,150, gold ornaments and grain etc. Details whereof have been given in the plaint.
2. Darya Khan and Saeed Khan, defendants Nos.1 and 2 in their joint written statement resisted the suit on all grounds legal as well as factual and denied claim of the plaintiffs. In view of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were formulated on 15-7-1996:--
(1) Whether plaintiffs have got a cause of action?
(2) Whether plaintiffs are estopped to sue the defendants?
(3) Whether plaintiffs have come to the Court with clean hands?
(4) Whether this Court has got the jurisdiction?
(5) What is the correct weight and value in terms of Rupees of grains and ornaments placed with defendants Nos.1 and 2 as security?
(6) Whether defendants-Arbitrators failed to settle the dispute between the parties and no decision was made in respect of dispute?
(7) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of golden ornaments and grains/chaff placed with defendants as security or their value from them?
(8) Relief.
3. Upon consideration of the material learned Civil Judge, Bannu, took up Issues Nos.1, 5 and 6 together and decided the same in positive holding that Arbitrators failed to settle the dispute between the parties in accordance with the principles of "Shariah" and that forfeiture of security amount was without any legal justification. While discussing Issue No,7, plaintiffs were held entitled to the recovery of Rs,2,00,000 from defendant No,1 and six mounds grain/Bhoosa' from defendant No,2 as security. Resultantly, the suit was decreed with cost by judgment and decree dated 6-4- 2000. Both the parties, feeling dissatisfied, preferred appeals thereagainst before District Judge, Bannu which were assigned to Additional District Judge, Bannu for disposal. Both the appeals were disposed of accordingly with slight modification and the plaintiffs were held entitled for recovery of 38 Tolas gold ornaments against defendant No,1 or the price thereof, and six mounds grain Bhoosa from defendant No,2.
4. Darya Khan and Saeed Khan, feeling dissatisfied, have filed instant civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is before me for consideration.
5. Mr. Muhammad Shahnawaz Sikandari, Advocate for the petitioners strenuously contended that the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are against the law and facts on record and suffer from the vice of misreading and non-reading of evidence and cannot be allowed to remain intact. He also maintained that the impugned judgments and decrees were recorded in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and in total disregard to the requirements of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. Which has resulted in manifest injustice. Mr. Gauhar Zaman Khan Kundi, Advocate for respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgments and decrees and maintained that concurrent findings of facts were recorded by both the Courts below which are based on proper appreciation of evidence. No case of misreading and non-reading of evidence has been made out, neither any legal infirmity has been pointed out warranting interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. He placed reliance on PLD 1994 SC 2911 and 2000 SCM R 346.
6. I have heard at length the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the material on file including the decision of Arbitrators, which remained the center of arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
7. Although this Court is not called to reappraise the evidence on record in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, yet in the interest of justice, I have evaluated and assessed the evidence and feel that findings of both the Courts below are in consonance with the evidence on record and no material piece of evidence seems to have been ignored or excluded out of consideration. The overall assessm ent of the evidence made by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court and the findings arrived at apparently do not call for interference by this Court and as such, it cannot be said that a grave miscarriage of justice has occurred or that the Courts below have exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact in revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Is very limited. 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 Court below 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 affecting its jurisdiction in the case as held in PLD 1994 SC 1836; PLD 1970 SC 288; PLD 1986 SC 89; 1984 SCM R 504 and 1987 SCM R 1005. In the instant case, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have elaborately discussed every aspect of the case and have dealt with the same in detail, leaving no room for further discussion. The mere assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned judgments and decrees are against the law and facts on record, without a positive attempt on his point to substantiate the same, is of no consequence.
8. The second objection raised on behalf of the petitioners regarding non-compliance of the provisions of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C., is equally without force. Learned Appellate Court was alive to the situation and the issue involved has been dealt with and decided in a careful manner. The Appellate Court has given its findings on all the points of controversy and no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioners. So far as the question of giving issue-wise findings by the Appellate Court is concerned, the same is not the requirement of law as under Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. The Appellate Court is to state the points for determination, give its decision thereon and reasons for the said decision be also mentioned. If the Appellate Court chalked out a point of controversy and gave its findings thereon which are duly supported by reasoning, then the Appellate Court would be said to have given its judgment in accordance with the provisions of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. If any authority is needed on the point, reference can be made to Umar Din v. Ghazanfar Ali and 2 others 1991 SCMR 1868 and Mst. Husna Bano v. Faiz Muhammad Mugsi and another 2000 CLC 709.
9. In the wake of above discussion, finding no substance in the civil revision, I dismiss the same with no order as to costs.