Summary: (a) Jurisdiction of Civil Court vs. Tribunal under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1977: ----Ss. 11, 12 & 13---Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning public property---Scope of civil court intervention. The respondent filed a declaratory suit challenging the government's ownership of land recorded as public property and seeking injunction, possession, and damages. The Assistant Commissioner issued a notice for removal of encroachment under S. 3 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1977. The court reaffirmed that: The Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction under S. 12 to determine whether a property is public or not. Civil Courts are barred from entertaining suits challenging ownership of land classified as public property under S. 11. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to grant affirmative declarations regarding ownership or to rectify revenue records—such claims must be filed before the civil court. ----Cited Cases: • Muhammad Farid v. Municipal Committee (PLD 1999 SC 41) • Mian Hakim Ullah v. Additional District Judge (1993 SCMR 907) (b) Declaratory Relief and Revenue Record Rectification: ----Competency of Tribunal to amend revenue entries---Exclusive jurisdiction of Civil Court under CPC and Specific Relief Act, 1877. The Tribunal decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting rectification of revenue records and compensation for damages. The High Court ruled that: The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to issue such declarations. Only the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain claims challenging revenue entries or seeking ownership declarations. The plaintiff must file a separate civil suit under S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 before the competent civil court. ----Cited Case: • Municipal Committee Mingora v. Nasar Khan (2016 MLD 1610) (c) Compensation for Damages due to Demolition: ----Recovery of damages for unauthorized demolition---Tribunal's lack of jurisdiction. The respondent sought Rs. 40,00,000 as compensation for demolished construction and loss of household goods. The Tribunal granted Rs. 20,00,000, which was later challenged. The court ruled: The Tribunal lacked authority to award damages. Claims for monetary compensation due to wrongful demolition must be filed before a civil court as part of a separate damages suit. The plaintiff is allowed to seek compensation separately through proper legal proceedings. (d) Effect of Tribunal's Judgment on Future Civil Suits: ----Tribunal’s findings not binding on Civil Court---Fresh evidence required in new proceedings. The court clarified that setting aside the Tribunal’s decree does not prejudice the plaintiff’s right to approach the civil court for ownership declaration and damages. Any new civil suit will be adjudicated independently, without reliance on the Tribunal’s findings. (e) Judicial Approach to Encroachment Disputes: ----Role of courts in balancing public property claims and private ownership disputes. The High Court emphasized that: Public property disputes must first be addressed through the Tribunal, but civil courts retain jurisdiction over ownership claims and compensation matters. Encroachment notices cannot be arbitrarily used to dispossess claimants without due process. Citizens have the right to contest government ownership claims before competent forums, provided they follow the prescribed legal procedures. ----Disposition: Petition allowed. Tribunal’s decree set aside. Plaintiff directed to file a separate suit before civil court for ownership declaration, damages, and possession.

Summary: Suit for declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 and the suit under section 13 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa removal of encroachment of public property Act 1977, distinction.No doubt, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 approached to the civil Court through his suit wherein besides declaration, perpetual injunction, he has also prayed for cancellation of notice issued to him by petitioner No.1 for removal of alleged encroachments, as such, there were two distinct reliefs: one was to be dealt with u/s 11, 12 & 13 of the Act of 1977 for which the civil Court could not grant a decree for cancelation of notice under the provisions of the Act of 1977, as such, the petitioners to that extent has rightly submitted the application for return of plaint to the respondent No.1, however, his suit for rest of the reliefs such as grant of declaration that the disputed khasra number was the sole ownership of the father of the plaintiff/ respondent No.1 and he, being his legal heir, is exclusive owner with the prayer that entries in the revenue papers are incorrect against his rights requires rectification and perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners from altering the nature of the suit property and lastly for compensation of the damages caused to his construction, were not the domain of the Tribunal in view of principle of Farid and others? case (supra). This Court was right in acceptance of Writ Petition No.2- M/2016 but the directions could only be given for return of plaint to the extent of notice challenged through suit by the respondent No.1 before the civil Court whereas for remaining reliefs, the civil Court had got ultimate jurisdiction u/s 9 of the C.P.C qua the relief u/s 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, thus, it appears that the Single Bench of this Court in said writ petition was not properly assisted by the then petitioners for return of plaint in respect of all the reliefs in view of the dicta laid down by the apex Court in the cases of supra cases of ?Muhammad Farid and others and Mian Hakim Ullah and others.

Summary: ----O. XVII, R. 3 & O. XV, R. 4---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.12, 42 & 54---Suit for specific performance, declaration and permanent/mandatory injunction---Alternate prayer for recovery of earnest money---Non-deposit of remaining sale consideration---Dismissal of suit by the Court under O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C.---Power of Court to proceed further when either party fails to comply with order of the Court or when provisions of O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C., is invoked---Scope---Contention of the petitioner was that suit should have been dismissed entirely without passing of money decree---Validity---Where a party to a suit, to whom time has been granted, fails to perform any act necessary to the further progress, for which time has been allowed, the court may, notwithstanding such default, proceed to decide the suit forthwith---Word 'forthwith' does not mean to pronounce judgment at once or dismiss the suit at the same time---Though the word 'forthwith' means without any further adjournment yet, it cannot be equated with the words "at once pronounce judgment' as used in O. V, R. 4, C.P.C.---Language employed in O. XVII, R. 3. C.P.C., by using the words 'the Court may, notwithstanding such default, proceed to decide the suit forthwith' is permissive and discretionary and does not, in all circumstances, entail penal consequences---Although suit of the respondent could be dismissed due to non-deposit of remaining sale consideration, yet he could not be dislodged from the relief in equity for the return of already paid money---Provisions of R. 3 of O. XVII do not place any bar on the discretion of Court to proceed ahead with the suit in view of the circumstances of the case---Civil Revision was dismissed accordingly. Muhammad Aslam v. Nazeer Ahmad 2008 SCMR 942; Hasham Khan and others v. Haroon ur Rashid and others 2022 SCMR 1793 and Muhammad Asif Awan v. Dawood Khan and others 2021 SCMR 1270 rel. Ahmad Ali, Haji Shakeel and Miss Shumaila Awan for Petitioner. Rizwanullah Khan Arain for Rrespondent No.1. Aamir Farid Saddozai, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents Nos. 4 to 8. Date of hearing: 2nd November 2023.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S. 115:Concurrent findings of fact---Scope of interference by revisional court---Perversity and misreading of evidence---Judgments and decrees of the trial and appellate courts decreeing plaintiffs' suit for declaration, possession, and mandatory injunction were set aside by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S. 115, C.P.C. on the ground of blatant misreading and non-reading of evidence and failure to consider binding legal principles---Respondents/plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of suit land allegedly mortgaged by non-Muslim evacuees prior to partition---Key documentary evidence, including notifications and revenue records, produced by Forest Department was not appreciated by courts below---High Court held that where judgments are perverse and contrary to record, revisional jurisdiction can be validly exercised to correct miscarriage of justice.Nazim-ud-Din v. Sheikh Zia-ul-Qamar 2016 SCMR 24 relied upon.(b) Constitution of Pakistan----Art. 24 & Public Interest Doctrine:Public property---Judicial obligation to safeguard state assets---Suit land, admittedly a public asset owned by the Forest Department, could not be allotted or transferred without adherence to legal provisions---High Court reiterated that courts are custodians of public interest and state property, and must exercise extraordinary caution in such matters---Any decree adversely affecting public land must be supported by lawful entitlement and proven claim---Civil courts cannot ignore material legal developments merely on the basis of pleadings.Provincial Government v. Shabbir Hussain PLD 2005 SC 337 and Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee PLD 1995 SC 423 discussed.(c) Evacuee Property Laws----Nature of ownership---Jurisdiction of civil court---Evacuee property---Vesting with government---Limitations on challenge---Land originally owned by non-Muslim evacuees at partition was validly transferred to the Forest Department by the Custodian of Evacuee Property vide notification dated 10.02.1948---Payment of consideration by Forest Department acknowledged by Board of Revenue in 1970s---Such land formed part of compensation pool and could not be reclaimed through civil suits---Civil courts lack jurisdiction to question treatment of property as evacuee land or transactions concluded under evacuee laws---Any claim regarding such properties must be routed through the Custodian or Notified Officer under relevant evacuee laws.Member BOR v. Mst. Siddiqan 2015 SCMR 1721, PLD 2003 Lahore 441, and Azizuddin v. Muhammad Ismail 1985 SCMR 666 relied upon.(d) Forest Act, 1927----S. 38 & Protected Forest Land:Allotment embargo---Binding effect of departmental notifications---Notification dated 27.02.1965 issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner placed a complete bar on allotment of evacuee land in possession of the Forest Department under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme---Such embargo applied to both notified and unnotified forest land---Any order or allotment made in violation of said notification was declared illegal and void---Respondents' claim based on possession and decrees obtained without impleading Forest Department was found to be ineffective and non-binding.Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Mahmood Shah 1991 SCMR 1426, Masooda Begum v. Govt. of Punjab PLD 2003 SC 90, and Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah's case 2017 SCMR 172 discussed.(e) Evidence Act (I of 1872)----Admissibility of documents---Requirement of proper proof---Documents (Exh.P.1 to Exh.P.12) relied upon by respondents/plaintiffs were tendered by counsel rather than by the witnesses themselves---Held, such documents lacked probative value and were liable to be excluded from consideration---It is a mandatory requirement that party producing documents must do so in their own statement to allow opportunity of cross-examination by adverse party.Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major (R) Muzaffar Khan Malik PLD 2021 SC 715 and Rustam v. Jehangir (deceased) 2023 SCMR 730 followed.----Disposition: Civil Revision Allowed---Judgments and Decrees of Courts Below Set Aside---Suit Dismissed.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 & S.104---Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act (XI of 2016), S.13---Temporary injunction against disconnection and transfer of gas meter sought---Pre-condition---Temporary injunction, refusal of---Petitioner preferred an appeal under S.13 of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, (Act) against the order of dismissal of application for temporary injunction passed by the Gas Utility Court---Contention of the appellant was that after dissolution of business partnership with the private respondent, the business of the shop and gas meter installed thereon was left in the ownership of the appellant through private settlement---Validity---Private respondent had remained co-partner with the appellant in the business and thereafter, their partnership was dissolved through their private settlement, however, he denied the factum of selling out the subject gas meter to the appellant and the same was still in his name---Private respondent had sold out the meter to another person against consideration---Official respondents highlighted that the appellant was not their consumer and according to their official record, the gas meter was installed in the name of private respondent---For grant of temporary injunction under O.XXXIX R.2, C.P.C., appellant was required to establish the existence of three essential ingredients i.e., a prima facie case, balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss if the interim injunction was not granted in his favour, however, he had not been able to establish the aforesaid ingredients, thus, appellant had no case for grant of temporary injunction---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Javed Iqbal and 5 others v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government, Peshawar and 4 others 2022 CLC 502 and Shahzad Trade Links through Sole Proprietor and another v. MTW Pak Assembling Industries (Private) Limited through Representative and others 2016 CLC 83 rel. Shabir Ahmad Khan (Dawlatkhel for Appellant. Fazal Rabi, Supervisor, SNGPL on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 to 7. Pukhtun Wali for Respondent No. 8. Date of hearing: 26th October, 2023.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): --- O. XXIII, R. 1 & O. XVII --- Withdrawal of Suit --- Conditional withdrawal of suit with liberty to file a fresh suit --- Jurisdiction of the trial court --- Failure to lead evidence --- Scope. Petitioners filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of documents, and permanent injunction before the Senior Civil Judge-III, Khairpur, in 2017. Issues were framed on 31.05.2018, but the plaintiffs failed to lead evidence. On 02.09.2019, plaintiffs sought withdrawal of the suit, conditioned upon filing a fresh suit due to technical defects. The trial court permitted withdrawal but declined permission to file a fresh suit, citing delay and failure to produce evidence. The petitioners challenged this order in Civil Revision Application No. 43/2019, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge-III, Khairpur, on 10.06.2022, upholding the trial court’s decision. Held, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to permit withdrawal while simultaneously denying permission to file a fresh suit. If the court disagreed with the condition, it should have either rejected the withdrawal request or accepted it entirely, instead of adopting a paradoxical approach. The failure of plaintiffs to lead evidence did not justify disposing of the suit in such a manner, as O. XVII, C.P.C. requires the court to either decree or dismiss the suit on the basis of the available material. The revisional court also erred in failing to recognize the trial court’s jurisdictional defect. Further held, that the trial court’s approach violated O. XXIII, R. 1, C.P.C., which governs withdrawal of suits. The petitioners’ right to file a fresh suit could not be denied arbitrarily. The case was remanded to the trial court with directions to either allow withdrawal of the suit unconditionally or proceed with the case as per law. Petitioners were granted the opportunity to introduce additional grounds for withdrawal if desired. ----Disposition: Petition allowed. Orders dated 02.09.2019 and 10.06.2022 set aside. Case remanded to the Senior Civil Judge-III, Khairpur, for reconsideration in accordance with O. XXIII, R. 1, C.P.C..

Summary: Background: The appellants filed a suit for declaration, perpetual injunction, and possession of land against the respondents. They claimed ownership of the land through inheritance and alleged that the respondents had illegally occupied it and established a "Wagon Adda" (bus stand) on it. The respondents countered with a claim that the land was rented to the appellants' predecessor and that a "Jirga" (council of elders) had settled the matter, agreeing that the land would be returned to the respondents after a payment was made to the appellants. The District Judge dismissed the appellants' suit and decreed in favor of the respondents. The appellants appealed against this decision. ----Issues: 1- Whether the decision of the "Jirga" constitutes a valid and enforceable contract under the Specific Relief Act and the Contract Act. 2- Whether the alleged agreement by the "Jirga" required registration under the Registration Act, 1908. 3- Whether the presence of only three persons can constitute a valid "Jirga." 4- Whether a court decree can be nullified based on the decision of a "Jirga." 5- Whether the suits were filed within the prescribed period of limitation under the Limitation Act. 6- Whether the decree of 1983 in favor of the respondents was validly passed. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Validity of "Jirga" Decision as a Contract: The court questioned whether the "Jirga" decision could be considered a concluded contract under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act and the Contract Act. The court emphasized that for a contract to be enforceable, it must involve offer and acceptance, and be legally binding. --Registration Requirement: The court noted that if the "Jirga" decision involved a significant amount of money and the transfer of immovable property, it should have been registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. --Constitution of "Jirga": The court expressed doubt about the validity of the "Jirga" with only three members, especially since the head of the "Jirga" was not produced as a witness. --Nullification of Court Decree by "Jirga": The court held that a decree passed by a competent court cannot be nullified by a "Jirga" decision unless it is challenged and set aside through proper legal channels. --Limitation Period: The court considered whether the suits were filed within the prescribed limitation period as per Article 3 of the Limitation Act. --Validity of 1983 Decree: The court directed a review of whether the 1983 decree was validly passed. ----Citations/Precedents: Specific Relief Act Contract Act, 1872 Registration Act, 1908 Limitation Act Sauki Sah & others vs. Mohamaya Parsad Singh & others, AIR 1934 Patra 518 Ghulam Rasool vs. Muhammad Hussain, PLJ 2000 SC 331 Phillips vs. Parnaby, (1934) 2 KB 299 Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. Sriyanesh Knitters, AIR 1999 SC 2947 IGP Punjab vs. Mushtaq Ahmed, PLD 1985 SC 159 Seaford Court Estates vs. Asher, [1949] 2 KB 481 State of Kerala vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., (1980) Kerl 976 Syed Abu Ala Maududi vs. Govt. of West Pakistan, PLD 1964 SC 673 Outcome The appeal was accepted, the judgment and decree of the District Judge dated 29.07.2019 were set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for de novo trial.

Summary: ----Art. 112(2)---Judicial notice---Scope---Custom having force of law need not be proved separately in each case---Court may take judicial notice in accordance with Art. 112(2) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Share in inheritance---Wrong entries in revenue record---Effect---Petitioners/ plaintiffs claimed to be owners in suit property to the extent of Sharai share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---Petitioners/plaintiffs assailed entries in revenue record in favour of respondents/defendants-- -Suit and appeal filed by petitioners/plaintiffs were dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively---Validity---In every Jamabandi brought on record, same position of self-cultivation of owners had been shown---Such entries expressly indicated that brothers of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/plaintiffs had been cultivating property in dispute---One of the petitioners/plaintiffs who appeared as witness affirmed that suit property was still in their possession---Petitioners/plaintiffs were in continuous possession of property in dispute and mere wrong entries in revenue record were deemed to be a refreshing cause of action with each repetition---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and decreed the suit in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs to the extent of Shari share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---High Court directed revenue authorities to redraw entries in revenue record and enter inheritance mutation in respect of legacy of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/ plaintiffs---Revision was allowed accordingly. Maqbool Ahmad and others v. Fazal-i-Haq and others 2012 SCMR 917; Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 1971 SC 791; Fayyaz Hussain and others v. Haji Jan Muhammad and others 2018 SCMR 698; Feroz Khan and others v. Mir Azam and others (C.R. No. 1196-P of 2010); Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din PLD 2022 SC 353; Saadat Khan and others v. Shahid ur Rehman and others PLD 2023 SC 362; Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others 2001 SCMR 1700 and Samar Gul and others v. Mohabat Khan and others 2000 SCMR 974 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Scope---Revisional Court is not supposed to follow wrong findings of facts of two Courts below and to become contributory thereto. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional Court---Moulding of relief---Scope---Civil Court or Revisional Court has jurisdiction to mould relief. Syed Shahid Shah for Petitioners Muhammad Shoaib Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th October, 2023.

Summary: ----Art. 112(2)---Judicial notice---Scope---Custom having force of law need not be proved separately in each case---Court may take judicial notice in accordance with Art. 112(2) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Share in inheritance---Wrong entries in revenue record---Effect---Petitioners/ plaintiffs claimed to be owners in suit property to the extent of Sharai share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---Petitioners/plaintiffs assailed entries in revenue record in favour of respondents/defendants-- -Suit and appeal filed by petitioners/plaintiffs were dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively---Validity---In every Jamabandi brought on record, same position of self-cultivation of owners had been shown---Such entries expressly indicated that brothers of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/plaintiffs had been cultivating property in dispute---One of the petitioners/plaintiffs who appeared as witness affirmed that suit property was still in their possession---Petitioners/plaintiffs were in continuous possession of property in dispute and mere wrong entries in revenue record were deemed to be a refreshing cause of action with each repetition---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and decreed the suit in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs to the extent of Shari share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---High Court directed revenue authorities to redraw entries in revenue record and enter inheritance mutation in respect of legacy of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/ plaintiffs---Revision was allowed accordingly. Maqbool Ahmad and others v. Fazal-i-Haq and others 2012 SCMR 917; Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 1971 SC 791; Fayyaz Hussain and others v. Haji Jan Muhammad and others 2018 SCMR 698; Feroz Khan and others v. Mir Azam and others (C.R. No. 1196-P of 2010); Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din PLD 2022 SC 353; Saadat Khan and others v. Shahid ur Rehman and others PLD 2023 SC 362; Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others 2001 SCMR 1700 and Samar Gul and others v. Mohabat Khan and others 2000 SCMR 974 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Scope---Revisional Court is not supposed to follow wrong findings of facts of two Courts below and to become contributory thereto. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional Court---Moulding of relief---Scope---Civil Court or Revisional Court have jurisdiction to mould relief. Syed Shahid Shah for Petitioners Muhammad Shoaib Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th October, 2023.

Summary: ----Art. 112(2)---Judicial notice---Scope---Custom having force of law need not be proved separately in each case---Court may take judicial notice in accordance with Art. 112(2) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Share in inheritance---Wrong entries in revenue record---Effect---Petitioners/ plaintiffs claimed to be owners in suit property to the extent of Sharai share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---Petitioners/plaintiffs assailed entries in revenue record in favour of respondents/defendants-- -Suit and appeal filed by petitioners/plaintiffs were dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively---Validity---In every Jamabandi brought on record, same position of self-cultivation of owners had been shown---Such entries expressly indicated that brothers of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/plaintiffs had been cultivating property in dispute---One of the petitioners/plaintiffs who appeared as witness affirmed that suit property was still in their possession---Petitioners/plaintiffs were in continuous possession of property in dispute and mere wrong entries in revenue record were deemed to be a refreshing cause of action with each repetition---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and decreed the suit in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs to the extent of Shari share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---High Court directed revenue authorities to redraw entries in revenue record and enter inheritance mutation in respect of legacy of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/ plaintiffs---Revision was allowed accordingly. Maqbool Ahmad and others v. Fazal-i-Haq and others 2012 SCMR 917; Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 1971 SC 791; Fayyaz Hussain and others v. Haji Jan Muhammad and others 2018 SCMR 698; Feroz Khan and others v. Mir Azam and others (C.R. No. 1196-P of 2010); Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din PLD 2022 SC 353; Saadat Khan and others v. Shahid ur Rehman and others PLD 2023 SC 362; Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others 2001 SCMR 1700 and Samar Gul and others v. Mohabat Khan and others 2000 SCMR 974 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Scope---Revisional Court is not supposed to follow wrong findings of facts of two Courts below and to become contributory thereto. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional Court---Moulding of relief---Scope---Civil Court or Revisional Court have jurisdiction to mould relief. Syed Shahid Shah for Petitioners Muhammad Shoaib Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th October, 2023.