' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- Syed Muhammad Umar Shah has filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 28-4-2000 of a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench whereby his revision filed against the concurrent findings of two Courts below, has been dismissed.
2. On 14-1-1981, the petitioner filed an application against the respondents praying that an award dated 23-11-1980 (out of Court) may be made rule of the Court. The matter remained pending for quite a long time in proceedings for getting the ex parte proceedings set aside and ultimately after certain remands etc. The trial before the Court commenced and the respondent filed objections to the award. Serious objection was taken to the effect that the petitioner in fact was a tenant on the suit premises and the award was fabricated in connivance with the so-called arbitrator to usurp the house, regarding vacation whereof, proceedings had already been initiated. That there had never been any agreement between the parties to refer any dispute for arbitration or to Saad Ullah, the so-called arbitrator.
3. After hearing the case at length, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner on 16- 11-1991. The appear heard by learned Additional District Judge Vehari was also dismissed on 2-2- 2000 and the revision before the High Court met the same fate on 28-4-2000 dismissing the same in limine but with detailed reasons. Whether the house in dispute was sold by the respondent to the petitioner; whether any such dispute outside the Court had ever been referred to the arbitrator; whether the respondent ever appeared before any arbitrator or before Saad Ullah aforesaid, were all important and essential questions of fact. In the light of evidence on record, the trial Court, the first Appellate Court as well as the High Court were all of the concurrent view that no dispute had ever been referred to arbitrator and that the petitioner had forged everything fraudulently in order to usurp the house and possession whereof he had been enjoying as a tenant. We see no ground at all to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the three Courts, completely in accord with the evidence on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Handwriting Expert was also examined in the case but no benefit of his statement was extended to the petitioner. After scanning the entire evidence on record and after going through the concurrent findings, we are of the firm view, that the only opinion of a Handwriting Expert, otherwise a weak piece of evidence, should not be allowed to prevail against strong circumstances and strong evidence giving inference, altogether, to the contrary. Whenonce the petitioner had failed to prove his case on the basis of the very evidence produced by him, he cannot be given the benefit of the only favourable opinion by the Expert, being otherwise a weak piece of evidence.
5. It is remarkable to note that the arbitration agreement and the receipt for payment of money, being basic and important documents, were not placed on record during ex parte proceedings and during lengthy first round of litigation. We are, therefore, further convinced that both the documents were forged, afterthought and after-prepared. There being no force in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.