1. ' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---These four petitions have been preferred against -a common judgment, dated 23-5-2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Lahore, arising out of the separate civil suits.
2. ' The facts in small compass in the background are that Muhammad Munir petitioner in C.P.
3. No,2534-L of 2001 filed a suit against Hafiz Muhammad Rafiq and others for possession of land measuring 3 Kanals 4 Marlas belonging to Khewat No,131, Khatooni No,157 and Khasra No, 336 of village Tandlianwala, District Faisalabad seeking declaration that registered sale-deed, dated 5-4- 1987 was a forged document and mutation dated 9-4-1987 sanctioned on the basis of said sale- deed was void and ineffective to his rights as owner of the property.
4. ' Zulfiqar Ali, petitioner in C.P. 2536-L of 2001 filed a similar suit against Hafiz Muhammad Rafiq and nine others, including Muhammad Shoab and Allah Yar seeking possession of above said piece of land, with declaration that the sale-deed, dated 5-4-1987 being forged was void and ineffective to his rights in the land. The learned trial Judge consolidated both the suits and dismissed the same vide judgment, dated 12-12.1989 which was further upheld by the Additional District Judge,Samundari, in the two separate appeals preferred by the petitioners vide judgment, dated 18-5-1995.
5. ' In Civil Petitions Nos.2547/L and 2548/L of 2001 Hafiz Muhammad Rafiq, instituted two separate suits against Muhammad Shoab and others. In the first suit, he sought a declaration to the effect that he was exclusive owner of the suit property and Muhammad Shoab was only a Benami. In the second suit filed by him against Wali Muhammad and others, he while challenging the validity of the sale-deed, dated 26-5-1981 sought a declaration that he was exclusive owner of the suit property with possession. The learned trial Judge in the light of the pleadings of the parties consolidated these two suits and ultimately passed a decree in the said suits vide judgment, dated 12-12-1989. The petitioners in the present petitions assailed the judgment and decrees through separate appeals and the learned Additional District Judge, Samundari, while maintaining the decrees dismissed the appeals vide judgment, dated 18-5-1995.
6. ' The petitioners then, by way of filing separate civil revisions bearing Nos. 1420 and 1421 of 1995 and 1422 and 1423 of 1995 challenged the judgment and decrees in the above said four suits in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, and a learned Single Judge seized of the matter having come to the conclusion that the concurrent finding of facts of the two Courts was not suffering from any infirmity of misreading or non-reading of evidence, dismissed the revision petitions vide the impugned judgment.
7. ' The petitioners through these petitions bearing Nos.2534-L, 2536-L, 2547-L and 2548-L of 2001 under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 have sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court passed in revisional jurisdiction by virtue of which the above said civil revisions were disposed of.
8. ' The dispute subject-matter of the litigation between the parties in the above said civil suits related to the same property and the civil revisions arising, out of these suits were decided by the High Court through a common judgment therefore, we propose to dispose of all these four petitions through this single judgment.
9. ' The petitioners urged the following two grounds in the civil revisions before the High Court:-
(a) That the suits for possession and. Declaration filed by the respondents would not be maintainable and instead they should have filed the suit for specific performance against Major Muhammad Nawaz, vendor, who was not impleaded as defendant in the suit despite being necessary party.
(b) That the suits of the respondents were hopelessly barred by timebut the question of limitation was not properly decided. The learned Judge in the Chambers in the High Court while dealing with the above contentions held as under:---
(a) That the vendor having delivered the possession of the suit-land in pursuance of the sale, had severed his interest in the property and was not a necessary party to be impleaded in the suit.
(b) That the objection relating to the limitation was without any substance as the agreement 26-5- 1981 and the general power of attorney, dated 3-6-1981 would take care of the question of limitation.. The learned Judge in the High Court having found no ground for interference in the concurrent finding of facts of the two Courts dismissed the revision petitions.
10. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the disposal of different suits by the learned trial Judge through a consolidated judgment caused serious prejudice to the petitioners and that although the property subject-matter of all the four suits was same yet the suit being of not common character, were essentially required to be disposed of through independent judgments. Learned counsel argued that the dismissal of the distinct suits Through a common..Judgment was not permissible under law as the question of fact in each suit would need independent decision, failing which the petitioners were condemned unheard. The learned counsel added that Civil Revisions Nos. 1420 and 1421 of 1995, 'subject-matter of C.Ps. Nos.2547-L and 2548-L of 2001 were disposed of by the High Court through a short order in the light of the judgment under challenge without taking pain of independent decision of question of law and facts raised in these revision petitions. The learned counsel emphasized that there was separate cause of action in the suit filed by Muhammad Munir petitioner in C.P. No, 2534-L of 2001 against Hafiz Muhammad Rafiq and others which was illegally disposed of with the connected suit filed by Zulfiqar Ali against Hafiz Muhammad Rafiq and others, through the same judgment and that the learned Judge in the High Court without taking notice of this gross illegality, dismissed the revision petitions. Lastly, it was argued by the learned counsel that the learned Judge in the High Court escaped the notice of misreading of evidence by the two Courts below which was apparent on the record, therefore, it is fit case for interference by this Court to undo the injustice done to the petitioners.
11. There is no cavil to the proposition that this Court in case of non-reading or misreading of evidence can set at naught the concurrent findings of fact but no such interference is made to disturb the finding of fact through reappraisal of evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners without pointing out any misreading or non-reading of evidence by the Courts below, has made an attempt to convince us that the finding of fact of the Court of first instance and Appellate Court was suffering with the defect of misappreciation of evidence and the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was not supposed to ignore such defect as it resulted in miscarriage of justice. We are afraid, the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not supposed to reappraise the evidence and upset the finding of facts even if erroneous, as the reversal of finding of fact by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction is only possible in case of misreading or non-reading of evidence or any irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction which can render the judgment of the subordinate Courts illegal.
12. We having perused the record with the help of learned counsel, find that the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction has rightly declined to interfere in the concurrent finding of facts of the two Courts. The learned counsel for the petitioners has neither been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence on record or that any question of law involved in the case was left undecided by the. High Court, The separate civil revisions arising out Of civil suits which were decided through the consolidated judgment could legally be disposed of through single judgment as all material facts were common in all suits which were tried and disposed of together and thus the disposal of revision petitions through the single judgment would cause no prejudice to the petitioners, therefore, no interference of this Court is called in the matter on such technical grounds.
13. ' There being no substantial question of law involved in these petitions, the same are dismissed.
14. Leave is refused.