' CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.--- The office has raised objection that petition is barred by two days. The petitioners have presented application in Court. The contents of application show that petition is not barred by time, therefore, objection is overruled.
2. The brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that petitioners Nos.1 and 2. And predecessor-in-interest of the remaining petitioners filed suit for declaration against respondents/defendants in the Court of Civil Judge T.T. Singh on 12-3-1963. The contents of the plaint reveal that petitioners and their predecessor are in possession of the land in question as Dakhilkars under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 and with permanent injunction that the respondents/defendants be restrained from interfering with their possession. Respondents filed written statement, controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed six issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 25-6-1965.. Petitioners being aggrieved .Filed appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Lyalpur who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 15-2-1967. Thereafter the petitioners filed R.S.A. In the Lahore High Court which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 10-9-2001. Hence, the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the Courts below have non-suited the petitioners by misreading and non-reading of the evidence on record. He further submits that all the Courts below had decided the case against the petitioners in violation of the mandatory provisions of sections 10 and 19 of the Colonization of Government Land (Punjab) Act, 1912. He further maintains that petitioners/plaintiffs were in possession of the land in question at the time of institution of the suit subsequently, petitioners filed application for amendment of the plaint through which possession of the piece of land was sought back through consequential relief. He further maintains that there was no allotment order in favour of the respondents. Respondents failed to establish any agreement to sell executed between the parties, therefore, judgment of all the Courts below are result of non-reading and misreading of the record.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment.
5. We have given our due consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. The contentions which are raised before us were not raised before the learned High Court as evident from para.3 of the impugned judgment. It is a settled law that parties are bound by their pleadings as law laid down by A this Court in Mst. Murad Begum's case PLD 1974 SC 322. The petitioners have only raised two main grounds as evident from para.3 of the impugned judgment which were duly considered and rejected with cogent reasons by the learned High Court as depicted from paras.4 and 5 of the impugned judgment of learned High Court, paras.7, 9 and 10 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court and also paras.7, 11 to 13 of the judgment of the trial Court. It is pertinent to mention here that all the Courts below i,e, the trial Court, First Appellate Court and the learned High Court had concurrently decided the case against the petitioners after proper appreciation of evidence. The questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are pre-eminently questions of facts. See
(i) Allen's case 1887 Vol. 12 AC 101, (ii) Bibhabati's case AIR 1947 PC 19 and (iii) Ali Ihsan's case PLD 1967 SC 249.
6. The ratio of the aforesaid cages is that this Court would not normally go behind the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, unless it can be shown that the finding is on the face of it against the evidence or so patently improbable, or perverse that to accept it could amount to perpetuating a grave miscarriage of justice, or if there has been any misapplication of principle relating to appreciation of evidence or finally, if the finding could be demonstrated to be physically impossible. This being the practice and rule of the Court in civil petitions, the burden lies heavily on the petitioners to show that the concurrent findings recorded by the High Court are not sustainable on the record and should be interfered with by us. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court and did not bring the case within the parameters prescribed by this Court and the Privy Council in the aforesaid judgments.
7. For what has been discussed above, the petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. Leave refused.