JAWAD S. KHAWAJA, J. --- The petitioner/plaintiff impugns the appellate judgment and decree dated 11.7:2001 whereby the decree of the learned Trial Court dated 22.11.1999 was reserved and as a consequence, the suit filed by the petitioner seeking specific performance of an agreement was dismissed. The facts of the case have been elaborately set out in the appellate judgment and need not therefore, be reproduced in extenso
2. The admitted petitioner is that the plot in dispute was allotted to one Muhammad Siddique son of. Roop Chand in 1964. The petitioner claimed that he was the sole legal heir of Muhammad Siddique. He, however, did not enter the witness-box in support of his case. On the contrary, his general attorney appeared and admitted that the petitioner was not the natural son of Muhammad Siddique.
3. The appellate decree as such is unexceptionable, being consistent with the record. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner 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. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.