' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- Leave to appeal sought against the judgment, dated 20-11-2000 (Civil Revision No,109-D of 1977) passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dismissing petitioners' civil revision and thereby confirming the concurrent judgments and decrees of the trial Court (dated 22-11-1974) and that of the first Court of appeal (dated 5-4-1977) in terms of which petitioners/plaintiffs suit for declaration was dismissed.
2. Through the said suit the petitioners had impugned Mutation No,9, dated 28-6-1953 evidencing the sale of the suit property by Ali Ahmad (petitioners' predecessors-in-interest) in favour of Wali Muhammad (predecessors-in-interest of the respondents). It was alleged that the mutation was collusive, that there was no sale and no consideration passed to the respondents/ defendants.
3. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit as time-barred and even.On merits it was held that there was nothing on record to prove that there was no sale. This finding was affirmed by the Court of appeal and the learned High Court in revision.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have gone through the impugned judgment as also the evidence led during the trial.
5. The impugned mutation is dated 28-6-1953 while the suit was filed in the year 1972 i.e, after 19 years. It is in evidence that the mutation was duly reflected in the Revenue Record and the respondents/ defendants were in possession ever since the mutation and when the suit was filed.
Petitioners also prayed for possession. In terms of Article 142 of the Limitation Act the period of limitation for filing such a suit is 12 years. That being so, the suit was hopelessly time-barred and the findings on this issue are unexceptionable.
5-A. There is nothing in evidence to indicate that the impugned mutation was collusive or fictitious.
Admittedly the predecessors-ininterest of the petitioners were alive 6/7 years after the mutation and he never challenged the said mutation or the entries made in the Revenue Record. A presumption of regulatory is attached to these entries and in absence of any credible material to rebut the said presumption the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit.
6. For the afore-referred reasons we do not find any merit in this petition to interfere with the concurrent judgment and decrees. The petition is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.
Leave to appeal refused.