' KHALIL-UR-RAHMAN RAMDAY, J.---This single order shall dispose of C.P.S.L.A. Nos. 1611-L of 1999 as also 1612-L of 1999 filed by Nazeer Ahmad and another which petitions are directed against an order, dated 15-7-1999 of the Lahore High Court whereby two Civil Revisions bearing Nos. 317-D and 318-D of 1999 filed. By the said Nazeer Ahmad and Mst. Noor Jehan petitioners were dismissed.
2. On 21-4-1990 one Ghulam Hussain had filed a suit in the Court of a learned Civil Judge at Jampur against Nazeer Ahmad and Mst. Noor Jehan seeking a declaration that he was the exclusive owner of theproperty in question; that Nazeer Ahmad and Mst. Noor Jehan had no concern with the said property and that the document dated 29-3-1990 registered as document No, 328/1 was a fraudulent and an illegal document which was ineffective against the rights of the said Ghulam Hussain. On 5-12-1990 the said Nazeer Ahmad and Mst. Noor Jehan also filed a suit in the Court of the same learned Civil Judge against the above mentioned Hafiz Ghulam Hussain and nine others praying for a decree for partitioning the suit property which was the subject-matter of the above- mentioned suit filed by Hafiz Ghulam Hussain. Through a consolidated judgment, dated 30-10-1998 the civil suit filed by Nazeer Ahmad and another was dismissed while the one filed by Hafiz Ghulam Hussain was decreed. Nazeer. Ahmad and Mst. Noor Jehan filed two separate appeals against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge which appeals were dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge through a judgment, dated 10-4-1999. They then approached the ' Lahore High Court with the above mentioned Civil Revisions Nos.317-D and 318-D of 1999 which also failed through the above mentioned impugned order, dated 15-7-1999 of the Lahore High Court.
3. We have examined the available record in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners who was faced with a consistent finding of the three learned Courts recorded against him. The learned counsel could not point out any illegality in the said three judgments and could not even show as to how the said judgments could be said to be based on misreading or non-reading of evidence available on the record. The concurrent findings of the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court which were maintained by the learned Revisional Court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and could not be said to be perverse or whimsical.
4. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in these two petitions which are accordingly dismissed. .