JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J. --- On the previous date of hearing it was noted that Muhammad Sharif (respondent No 4) has died. His L.Rs. Have been brought on record and have been served. None has appeared on their behalf. They are, therefore, proceeded against ex parte. The other private respondents, namely, respondents Nos. 3, 5 and 6 have already been proceeded against ex parte on 16.1.2006.
2. This revision petition impugns the concurrent findings of the learned Thal Court dated 27.1.1993 and of the learned lower Appellate Court dated 3.3.2000 whereby a suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs was dismissed.
3. The facts of the case have been set out in the impugned judgments and need not therefore, be reproduced in extenso.
4. The main grievance of the petitioners was that they had not been served before the passing of the two impugned orders dated 23.11.1986 (Ex. P-4) and 11.11.1987 (Ex.P-5) by -.The Divisional Canal Officer. This assertion was belied by the testimony of the 'petitioners' witnesses who admitted that not only had the petitioners been served but they had also joined the proceedings before the Divisional Canal Officer.
5. The learned Courts below have duly appreciated the evidence brought on record while dismissing the suit of the petitioners. The impugned decrees are, therefore, unexceptionable.
Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to advert to any such jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity in the impugned judgments which would justify interference therein while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this petition which is, therefore, dismissed.