Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No.154 of 1986, decided on 5th May, 1987.

---S.115--Revisio.nal jurisdiction--Issues of fact--Courts below giving concurrent findings of facts--Conclusions arrived at by Courts neither based on no evidence nor on inadmissible evidence nor it could be said that they had no jurisdiction to decide same--Interference declined in revisional jurisdiction by High. Court.

---S.115--Revisional jurisdiction--Scope of powers of High Court under 5.115, C. P. C., held, was of limited nature.

Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan P L D 1970 S C 139 rel.

---S.115--Revision--Respondent owner of house and petitioner was his licensee whose licence was revoked by respondent--Petitioner failing to vacate premises and respondent's suit for possession and mesne profit decreed by Courts below by giving concurrent findings on questions of fact regarding ownership and construction of house by respondent and failure of petitioner to prove his contention that he was not a tenant but a purchaser of house--Findings of Courts below neither based on no evidence nor suffering from jurisdictional defect- Interference declined in revision.

Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan P L D 1970 S C 139 and Kanwal Nain and 3 others v. Fateh Khan and others P L D 1983 S C 53 rel.

Azhar Ali Siddiqui for Petitioner.

S.Mukhtar Hassan Naqvi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 4th May, 1987.

This revision application is directed against the judgment/decree passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, West, Karachi, dated 15-3-1986 dismissing Civil Appeal No.103 of 1985 filed by the--appellant against the judgment/decree/passed by the learned 20^th Civil Judge Karachi, in suit No.2694/74.

2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the respondent raised construction or, plot No.1481/A, in Golimar Area. The house constructed by him consisted of three rooms. In 1962, at the request of the applicant he allegedly inducted the applicant as a licensee in his house and gave him two rooms for temporary residence of the applicant and his family. In 1966, the respondent allegedly terminated the licence whereupon the respondent is alleged to have dispossessed him of the 3rd room also. The respondent filed a criminal case in which the applicant was discharged. The respondent, therefore, filed a suit in the Civil Court for possession and mesne profits. The applicant resisted the suit raising the pleas therein, that he had purchased the house in question from the respondent in 1962 for Rs.4,000 in presence of witnesses Mirza Hamid Baig and S.M.Chishty. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court settled the following issues:

"(1) Whether the plaintiff is owner of the house constructed on plot No.1481/A Golimar Peerabad Colony Karachi

(2) Whether the defendant occupied the above said house as licensee of the plaintiff if not, in what capacity

(3) Whether the plaintiff revoked the licence of the defendant in respect of the house in question

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim mesne profits from the defendant in respect of house in question If so at what rate and since when

(5) What should the decree be

3. The learned trial Judge gave his findings in affirmative on all the issues and decreed the suit of the respondent. His appeal was also dismissed.

4. It will be seen that all the issues are of fact and the Courts below have given concurrent findings of facts. Both the learned trial Court and appellate Court have come to the conclusion, that the respondent was owner of the house in question and the applicant was his licensee whose licence was revoked, but he failed to vacate the premises and, therefore, the suit was decreed for possession as well as mesne profits for the period mentioned in the judgment.

5. From the pleadings of the parties there can no doubt that the construction was raised on the plot by the respondent. The applicant claims to have purchased this construction from the respondent for Rs.4,000 in presence of the witnesses named above. Admittedly, there is no written document about the sale or agreement to sell or even of B payment of the amount alleged to have been paid as consideration. The burden of proof of the purchase of the house was upon the applicant which according to the learned Courts below he has failed to discharge.

6. The scope of the powers of this Court under section 115, C.P.C. are of limited nature. In the case of Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan P L D 1970 S C 139 their Lordships have held "The revision al powers under Section 115, C.P.C. are primarily intended for correcting errors made by subordinate .Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction. Also ordinarily erroneous decisions of facts are not reviewable, except in cases where the decision is based , on no evidence or inadmissible evidence or is so perverse that grave injustice would result therefrom". .This view has been reiterated by their Lordship of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanwal Nain and 3 others v. Fateh Khan and others P L D 1983 S C 53. This Lordships have further held in that case that in upsetting conclusions of Courts below on question of facts by mans of re-examination of evidence of revision, the High Court had overstepped limits of its jurisdiction.

7. In the instant case it is not contended that the conclusion arrived at by they two Courts below is based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence. Both the parties led oral evidence on the issues. In question and the Courts below appeared to have believed the evidence of the respondent. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Courts below hive not properly appreciated the evidence and that they have not taken into consideration and admission made by the respondent in the criminal trial that the applicant; ways his tenant. The learned counsel admitted that the respondent was not confronted with his previous statement and further that in the civil suit none of the parties had raised the plea that the applicant was tenant of the respondent. As such the conclusion arrived at by the two, Courts below cannot be considered to be based on no evidence nor can it be said that they had no jurisdiction to decide the suit. No other point is urged by the learned counsel for the applicant. I find no merit in this revision application. There is no ground for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision application is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

8. The revision application was dismissed by the short order dated 4-5-1987, the above are the reasons in support of that decision.

M. Y. H./J-31/K Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.