1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 21-1-2000 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dismissed the civil revision filed by the petitioners by maintaining the earlier determination of the two Courts below i,e, the learned Civil Judge and the learned First Appellate Court.
2. ' The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, being an allottee under the Abad Kari Scheme, entered into an agreement with the respondents to transfer the disputed land after acquisition of proprietary rights for a consideration of Rs,35,000. Said agreement was executed on 15-1-1980. Along with the same, the predecessor-in- interest also executed a General Power of Attorney in favor of respondent No,
1. The respondents, as reflected from the documents annexed with the petition, were given possession of the disputed property. However, subsequently the power of attorney issued in favor of respondent No,1 was cancelled and the predecessor-in-interest stopped taking steps for the conferment of proprietary rights by the respondents.
3. ' Facing this situation, the respondents were constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction on 15-2-1988. This suit was resisted by the petitioners. Issues were framed and the parties led their evidence. The learned trial Judge vide its order, dated 28-3-1992 dismissed the suit. The respondents filed an appeal and the learned First Appellate Court accepted the same through its judgment, dated 17-1-1995 remanding the case to the trial Court for its decision afresh.
4. ' After remand the learned trial Court decreed the suit on 4-2-1997. An appeal filed by the petitioners against the above judgment was dismissed on 16-4-1999 and the civil revision filed by them also met the same fate as it was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through the judgment impugned. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
5. ' We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the entire material placed on record with his assistance. We have noticed that the agreement earlier entered into between the parties on 15-1-1980 was a registered document. The respondent, in order to substantiate his claim, also produced a marginal witness who supported the same in letter and spirit. The payment of consideration has also been proved through confidence inspiring evidence. The two Courts below, after scanning the entire evidence, have determined a question of fact which has been maintained by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by advancing cogent reasons. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgments warranting interference by this Court.
6. ' Resultantly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the instant petition being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed and leave refused.