1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN. J.---Leave to appeal is soughtagainst the judgment/order dated 21-2-2000 and 7-4-2000 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, respectively dismissed civil revision as well as review petition filed by the petitioners.
2. ' Facts briefly are that the petitioners filed an application for partition of land measuring 222 Kanals, 12 Marlas and took up the plea that a private partition had already been effected between the parties 'whereafter they were in possession of specific numbers. It was further averred in the said application that the said private partition was not violative of MLR 115. Muhammad Tufail, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, submitted his reply on 18-5-1981 whereafter the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Grade-I, Sahiwal, passed an order on the same day proceeding with the application stating that since no issue of title was involved, as such he started proceeding to sanction the mode of partition.
3. ' The respondent took exception to the order dated 18-5-1981 and the learned District Collector, Sahiwal, accepted the appeal against the above order and remanded the case for fresh proceedings after determining the title. Subsequent to the remand, Muhammad Tufail respondent filed a suit for declaration. The Tehsildar/A.C. Grade-I took up the matter in exercise of his power under section 141 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, and framed issues. The parties led their evidence and the TehEildar/A.C. Through his order dated 6-1-1983 gave a declaration that a private partition between the parties was effected and consequent thereto they got specific area and had been occupying their WANDAS since then. The petitioners filed an appeal against the above judgment, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, through his judgment dated 10-7-1985. Civil Revision No,523 of 1985 against the aforesaid judgment was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court at Multan through his judgment dated 21-2-2000.
4. Thereafter, they filed a review petition which too was dismissed through his order dated 7-4-2000.
5. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
6. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents are in possession of excess land measuring 4 Kanals and the Courts have wrongly dismissed their partition application.
7. We have considered the above contention and have gone through the entire documents annexed with the petition. At the very outset it must be noted that the petitioner himself in his application made reference to a private partition and mentioned the specific area in their possession. Not a single word against the private partition was made in the saidapplication which was filed on 19-8- 1980. The respondent took exception to the order dated 18-5-1981 which was set aside by the District Collector, Sahiwal, on 7-12-1981 and the latter order was not challenged any further, as such the same in the circumstances had attained finality. Consequent to the last mentioned order the respondent filed a declaratory suit which has been decreed and the learned High Court by advancing cogent reasons has maintained the determinations of all the forums below. A perusal of the documents further reveals that the above private partition took place in 1969 and since then the parties are in possession of their respective areas. It is also reflected from the record that few Kanals of land in excess is with the respondents and that was certainly with the agreement of the parties which took place, as already stated, in the year 1969. Furthermore, the said application was made by the petitioners in the year 1980 nearly more than 10 years after the private partition which had already been effected between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity, in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
8. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and leave declined.