' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 22-4- 2002 passed by learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the revision petition preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and order of the First Appellate Court dated 2-4-1995 has been kept intact.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the judgment impugned are to the effect that Muhammad Rarnzan, the present respondent filed a suit for possession of the property comprising of Khasra No,1060, Khewat No,281, Khatoni No,422 land measuring 4 Marlas to have been transferred in his favour through a registered sale-deed dated 25-3-1980 executed by Nawab Din. The said sale-deed was also entered in the Revenue Record vide Mutation No,2181. The defendants wanted to raise construction over the property and till then they requested the plaintiff to give this property for temporary residence to be vacated immediately on completion of their own property. The defendants purchased certain property in their names on 8-5-1980 and till to date have not delivered the possession of the suit property to the respondent/plaintiffs. Hence this suit. The present petitioners/defendants before the trial Court submitted their written statement alleging it to be barred by time and that the petitioners/defendants purchased this property for a consideration of Rs,7,000 on 8-5-1980 and have raised their own construction. It was also alleged that Mst. Sakina Bibi etc. Filed suits for possession through pre-emption over this property against the defendants which were dismissed on 17-11-1986, which was assailed before the First Appellate Court by whom the judgment and decree of learned trial Court was set aside and the suit of Muhammad Ramzan (respondent) was decreed. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision petition which has been dismissed vide judgment impugned, hence this petition.
3. Mr. Zahid Hussain Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner has mainly contended that legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated in its true perspective by the learned First Appellate Court as well by the High Court which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is next contended that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner which caused serious prejudice against the petitioner. It is urged with vehemence that the property in question was belonged to the petitioner duly purchased by him which aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned First Appellate Court as well as High Court without any rhyme and reason. It is pointed out that property in question (Khasra Nos.1047, 1053 and 1057) was purchased by the petitioner through registered sale-deed dated 8-5-1980, the respondent filed a suit for property bearing Khasra No,1060 having no concern whatsoever with the property of the petitioner but no attention has been paid to this important aspect of the controversy by the learned forums below. It is next Contended that it is also a case of misreading or non-reading of evidence and on this score alone the judgment impugned is liable to be set -aside.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have perused the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court as well as judgment impugned. We have also examined the judgment/decree dated 10-1-1994 passed by learned. Civil Judge, Gujranwala. After having gone through the entire record we are of the view that entire controversy revolves around Khasra No,1060. The petitioner failed miserably to substantiate his claim qua Khasra No,1060 by leading any convincing, or documentary evidence. It has, however, come on record that it was purchased by Muhammad Ramzan (respondent) from one Nawab Din by means of sale-deed (Exh.P.5) duly supported by copies of Record of Rights which could not be rebutted. No evidedce worth the name could be adduced showing as to how the property bearing Khasra No,1060 was devolved upon the petitioner. The conclusion as arrived at by the learned First Appellant Court and affirmed by the High Court is neither whimsical nor capricious meriting any interference by this Court. It is well- settled by now that this Court as the final Court will not disturb concurrent findings of facts based on full appreciation of evidence save in most exceptional case which are lacking in this case. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in cases titled Muhammad Sharif v. Abdul Majid 1986 SCM R 190, Sadiq Jan v. Muhammad Rashid 1985 SCM R 860, Abdur Rauf Khan v. Firm Babu Munir Ghulam Siddique 1976 SCM R 436, Star Textile Mills Limited v. IVth Sindh Labour Court 1976 SCM R 448, Sanaullah v. State 1985 SCM R 1488 and Jamal khan v. Ghulam Muhammad 1978 SCM R 179.
5. No question of law of public importance is involved in the matter persuading us to grant leave to appeal. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused.