'FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 5-7-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.R. No,1040 of 1999.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that respondent Mukhtar Ali instituted a suit for declaration thereby calling in question the Sale Mutation No,1068 attested on 8-8-1988 in favor of the petitioners in respect of disputed land measuring 6 Kanals and 13 Marlas. The Civil Judge 1st Class Tehsil Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh framed as many as 10 issues in view pf the divergent pleadings of the parties and recorded the _ evidence. The Civil Judge decreed the suit of the respondent by judgment and decree, dated 30-5-1996. The petitioners preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gojra at Toba Tek Singh by judgment and decree dated 20-5-1999. The Civil Revision No,1040 of 1999 of the petitioners was also dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore by the impugned judgment, dated 5-7-1999. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that during the trial of the suit the petitioners had submitted an application seeking permission to produce additional evidence and to submit certified copy of the earlier suit for pre-emption titled Falak Sher v. Faiz Muhammad and others in respect of the same property. The trial Court unjustifiably dismissed the application of the petitioners for production of additional evidence. It was further submitted that First Appellate Court also failed to advert to the provisions of Order XLI, rule 27, C.P.C. In the matter. The Court ought to have allowed the production of additional evidence by the petitioners.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. We find that the learned counsel failed to show from the record of the case that the order, dated 21-5-1996 of the trial Court dismissing the application of the petitioners for the production of additional documentary evidence was assailed before the Appellate Court at any stage of the proceedings. The learned counsel was not even sure whether the said order, dated 21-5-1996 was at all challenged in the grounds of appeal. Even the copy of the memo. Of appeal was not placed on record of this Court.
All the Courts recorded concurrent findings of fact on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties to which no interference was called for. No misreading or non-reading of material evidence was pointed out. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity. This is not a fit case for grant of leave.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.