' FALAK SHER, J.--- Aggrieved by the rejection of the petitioners' Civil Revision (No,17 of 2000) by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, vide the impugned judgment, dated 7-2-2000 concurring with the judgment in affirmance of Additional District Judge, Gujrat in Appeal (No,67-A of 1999) on 26-10-1999 upholding the findings of the trial Court decreeing the respondents' suit for possession of 4 Kanals and 13 Marlas of the spelt out land on the basis of ownership vide the impugned judgment, dated 13-1-1986, opining in the following terms:-- "There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the both Courts below and even otherwise, it is an admitted position that the suit-land was owned by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents.
It is, however, claimed by the petitioners that such land was exchanged with the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents in the year 1961-62. From the evidence on record, it transpires that the alleged exchange of the land was never acted upon, because predecessor-in-interest of both the parties had gifted the parcel of land, originally owned by them, in favor of their sons. Admittedly, the petitioners are in possession of that portion of land qua which they claim exchange having been made. Even otherwise, the petitioners have also not been able to establish that the construction over the suit-land was made by them as alleged in the year 1960. Both the Courts below have duly appreciated the evidence on record and have reached to a finding of fact which is not shown erroneous on account of any misreading or non-reading therefore, the present petition has no force and is hereby dismissed." ' has recourse to the present petition for leave to appeal solely contending that the issue of limitation was neither adverted to in appeal nor in the revision.
2. Which we are afraid is ill-founded since the same stands refuted by the observations made in para.9 of the appellate order of the Additional District Judge in the following terms:- "As far as the remaining issues are concerned, the appellants have only challenged the findings on issue No,4, whereas they have not challenged the findings on any other issue, therefore, placing reliance on 1982 CLC 1416 this Court cannot go beyond the grounds of appeal as raised by the appellants in their memorandum of appeal."
3. Resultantly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Leave declined.