' Brief facts out of which present civil revision arises are that the respondents filed a suit for declaration before the Civil Judge, Alipur on 31-5-1992. The contents of the plaint reveal that the respondents/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the petitioners/defendants in connection with Khata No,81/148/149, land measuring 20 Kanals situated in Mauza Kachi Lal, Tehsil Alipur, District Muzaffargarh. The contents of plaint further reveal that the respondents/plaintiffs are owners in possession of the disputed land vide Mutation No,616, dated 30-10-1957. The petitioners/defendants gave the possession to Jamal son of Sharin and Yar Muhammad son of Pir Bakhsh. The petitioners/defendants had also promised that entrance of this mutation has been made in the Revenue Record. During the consolidation, implementation of this mutation was not made and the petitioners/defendants promised to make it in Civil Court. The petitioners/defendants filed written statement controverting the allegations levelled in the plaint.
Out of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- Issues
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property and the adverse entries in the Revenue Record are illegal, against the facts, void and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action and locus standi to file this suit? OPD
(3) Whether the plaint has not been verified in accordance with law, if so, to what effect? OPD
(4) Whether, the plaintiffs are estopped from bringing the instant suit due to their own words and conduct? OPD
(5) Whether the suit has been properly valued and stamped? OPD
(6) If issue No,5 is not proved then what is the correct valuation and how much is the deficiency in court-fee? OPD
(7) Whether this suit is barred by limitation? OPD
(8) Whether this suit is vexatious one and the defendants are entitled to recover special costs? If so, to what extent? OPD
(9) Relief.
' The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree; dated 15-12-2000. The petitioners/defendants being aggrieved filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Alipur, who dismissed the same vide judgment, and decree, dated 29-1-2002. Hence, the revision petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that the First Appellate Court erred in law to dismiss the appeal of the petitioners/ defendants without giving findings on each and every issues which is duty and .Obligation of First Appellate Court to decide the appeal of the petitioners while giving findings on each and every issue in view of Order 41, rule 31 of C.P.C. The First Appellate Court decided the appeal of the petitioners in violation of mandatory provisions of C.P.C. As per law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-- Muhammad Mustaqeem v. Abdul Haleem and others 1992 CLC 435; Juma Khan v. Mst. Shamim and 3 others 1992 CLC 1022 and Shaukat Ali v. Mst. Razia Bibi and others 1999 CLC 62.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.
4. It is admitted fact that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings on facts against the petitioners. This Court has very limited jurisdiction to disturb the findings on facts while exercising powers under section 115. C.P.C., as per principle laid down by the Privy Council in N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar and others v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board. Madras PLD 1949 PC 26. The relevant observation is as follows:--- "This section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself upon three matters: (a) that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction: (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that n may have affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied upon these three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however profoundly, from the conclusion of subordinate Court upon questions.Of fact or law."
' The dictum of Privy Council was followed by this Court in Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Syed Khalid Mehmood 1985 CLC 657. It is pertinent to mention her that judgment of this Court is upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court. The learned counsel of the petitioners failed to point out any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and any piece of evidence which is the result of misread and non-read of evidence on record. It is also pertinent to mention here that the First Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the learned trial Court, therefore, it is not necessary for the First Appellate Court to give findings qua each and every issue at the time of confirming the judgment of the learned trial Court. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court to resolve the controversy between the parties:-- ' Para. No,7.
' "Exh,P.1 is certified copy of the impugned Mutation No,161 in favour of the respondents. Transferred by Piran Ditta original predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, which reveals that 20 Kanals and 2 Marlas land situated in Khata No:81 was alienated' by said Piran Ditta to the respondents. Exh.P.2. Is Jamabandi for the year 1958-59, which disclosed that despite of alienation of disputed land by Piran Ditta, entry of said land remained intact in the name of Piran Ditta, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. Then Exh.P.3 and Exh.P.4 are also available on the file, which are, pertaining to the year 1986-87 and 1990-1991 respectively. Though Khata number of the disputed land has been changed, but it has been proved by the respondents that these both Jamabandies are pertaining to the same Khata, that was Khata No,81 from which disputed land measuring 20 Kanals. And 2 Marlas was alienated by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants and these Jamabandies also bear the name of the appellants up till now: meaning thereby, disputed mutation was not incorporated in the Revenue Record, so far, ,whereas according to law, it was the primary duty of the Revenue Authority to incorporate said disputed mutation in their subsequent record prepared by the Department after each four years.
' Para No,8.
' Since through disputed mutation, right of ownership of the respondents about 20 Kanals and 2 Marlas has been accrued and according to settled law right could not be waived without any cogent reason, but in this case, since respondents have valid mutation of land measuring 20 Kanals and 2 Marlas in their favour and was not incorporated in the Revenue Record on one or the other pretext but law demands that ownership could not be deprived from his right. Same is the position in this case, hence I have not seen any merits in this appeal, same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
5. The aforesaid operative part of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that First Appellate Court decided the appeal of the petitioners after proper appreciation of evidence on record, therefore, I do not find any infirmity and illegality in the judgment of the First Appellate Court in view of the following principles laid down by the superior Courts:--
(i) It is settled principle of law that judgment of affirmance, Appellate Court need not- re-discuss each and every detail of evidence on record as the law laid down in Intej Ali and others v. Yadulla and others PLD 1961 Dacca 79.
(ii) I am also fortified by the law laid down in Mahendra Nath Bhunia and others v. Ashutosh Pradhan and others AIR 1926 Cal.
545.
(iii) Issue-wise judgment is not required as the law laid down in Commander (Retd.) M.A. Ansari v.
Pakistan Defence Housing Authority and another 1996 CLC 198 and Fardioon v. Shafiullah Khan and others 2002 CLC 1262.
(iv) It is also settled principle of law that although no strict adherence to provisions of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. Could be imputed to judgment of Appellate Court, yet conclusions drawn by it could not be disputed in revision, as the law laid down in Walayat Begum and others v. Wazir Begum and others 1992 CLC 553.
(v) The Appellate Court had substantially complied with the provision of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C., while writing a judgment in its Appellate jurisdiction then this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent findings on facts as the law laid down in Muhammad Siddique and 2 others v. Mst.
Shagufta Begum alias Shagufta Rafique and another 1994 CLC 1690 and Muhammad Siddique v.
Mst. Noor Jahan and another 1994 CLC 1674.
(vi) It is also settled principle of law that Court can decide issues jointly. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the law laid down in Ibarat Hussain and others v. Mir Afzal Khan and 12 others 2002 CLC 1150.
(vii) it is also settled principle of law that relevant points or question considered substantial compliance with provisions of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. As the law laid down in Malik Najib Ullah Khan and others v. Saif Ullah and other 1980 CLC 2155, Allah Bakhsh and others v. Noor Khan and others 1980 CLC 498 and Muhammad Azim and another v. Mahraja Patesbwari Prasad Sin AIR 1943 Oudh 105.
(viii)It is also settled principle of law that Court in non-compliance with strict provisions of rule 31 of Order XLI, C.P.C. May not vitiate judgment and irregularity to be ignored if provisions substantially complied with as the law laid down in the following judgments:- Mst. Roshi and others v. Mst. Fateh and others 1982 SCM R 542, Malik Najib Ullah Khan and others v.
Saif Ullah 1980 CLC 2155, Ch. Abdul Kabeer v. Mian Abdul Wahid 1968 SCM R 464, Abdul Hameed v.
Muhammad Zaki and others 1990 M LD 1129 and Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Messrs Abdul Ghani Abdul Rehman Limited 2002 CLC 1039.
(ix) It is also settled principle of law that the First Appellate Court not strictly complying with provisions of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. But taking into consideration main issues involved and main documents placed on record and giving findings based on correct reasoning then this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the findings of the First Appellate Court. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the law laid down in the following judgments: judgments:-- ' Sultan and another v. Chatanmal 1985 M LD 526 and Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Messrs Abdul Ghani Abdul Rehman Limited 2002 CLC 1039.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the judgment of the First Appellate Court is in accordance with law laid down by the superior Courts as is evident from the operative part of judgment reproduced above. It is also settled principle of law that each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. The judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner are distinguished on facts and law.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.