' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against Lahore High Court order dated 14-10-1999 recorded in Civil Revision No,1599 of 1999 and Writ Petition No,19306 of 1999, involving common question of law and fact.
2. Petitioner filed a suit for specific performance against the respondents, which was dismissed by Civil Judge, Gujrat vide judgment and decree dated 23-4-1991. Her appeal against the judgment and decree was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Gujrat vide judgment and decree dated 17- 6-1993. Her Civil Revision No,1069 of 1993 was, however, accepted and the case was remanded to the Appellate Court vide order dated 5-4-1999 for decision afresh. In post remand proceedings, Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 27-9-1999 dismissed the appeal. Civil revision against the said judgment and decree has been dismissed, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently agitated that the Additional District Judge, while discussing Issues Nos.2 to 7 did not record separate findings on each of the issues and has not discussed the evidence, as required by provisions of C.P.C.
4. We have gone through the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court and noticed that the Appellate Court has substantially discussed Issue No,1 at length and recorded valid and sound reasons for concurring with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court on other issues as well.
He has firmly held that the findings recorded by the trial Court do not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of evidence and that thesame do not suffer from any error Of law. We do not agree with the learned counsel when he states that learned Additional District Judge was under statutory duty to discuss each issue separately and record findings separately discussing evidence thereon.
We are of the view that in case the Appellate Court decides to affirm the findings of the trial Court, it would be sufficient compliance with the provisions of law if the evidence is essentially discussed and findings recorded. At any rate it would not amount to violation of law, if some issues are discussed and decided together. Real question for deciding an appeal should be whether a party has been prejudiced and there has been gross miscarriage of justice, which does not appear to have been occasioned in the case in hand. Reference may be had to Roshi v. Fateh 1982 SCM R 542 and Samiul Haq v. Maqbool Hussain Butt 2001 SCM R 1053. Petitioner's case was re-examined at the revisional stage by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, who has also concurred with the findings of fact recorded by two Courts below for cogent reasons, which do not warrant any interference by this Court in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
5. On a careful assessm ent of the record and the impugned judgments, we are of the view that no substantial question of law of public importance has been raised in these petitions, which are without any merit and are hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is, thus, refused.