' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- The suits filed by the present respondents seeking possession of the suit land were decreed by the learned Trail Court vide separate judgments and decrees, dated 16-12-2000 which judgments and decrees were however set aside by the learned Appellate Court i.e, an Additional District Judge, at Mianwali as a result whereof, the said suits were dismissed. The said respondents then approached the learned High Court through Civil Revisions Nos.1666, 1667 and 1668 of 2001 which were allowed through the impugned judgment dated 7-2-2002 whereby the appellate judgments and decrees were set aside and the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court were restored.
2. Hence these petitions by the defendants-petitioners.
3. We have heard the learned counsel Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners in Civil Petitions Nos.1502 to 1504-L of 2002 which arise out of the same consolidated judgment and have also examined the record in the light of the submissions made by him.
4. The reasons which weighed with the learned High Court in setting aside the appellate judgments and decrees were that the defendants had taken contradictory pleas i.e, a plea that they were the owners of the land in question and also that they were in adverse possession of the said land wherefor the plaintiffs could not be permitted, in law, to seek possession of the said land. The learned High Court found and rightly so, that the defendants had not been able to satisfy the conditions laid down by section 28 of the Limitation Act and further that even otherwise the said provision stood declared as un-Islamic. It had also been found that sufficient evidence had been led by the plaintiffs-respondents including the testimony of Patwari and the Tehsildar and the documentary evidence in the form of the report of the demarcation of the land in question dated 3-11-1990 (Exh.P-2), the report of the Tehsildar/ Local Commissioner, dated 15-5-1995 (Exh.P-4) that the land in question belonged to the plaintiffs-respondents. The learned High Court had also considered the effect of the oral testimony offered by the present petitioners at the trial and had rightly come to the conclusion that the appellate judgment suffered from factual and legal infirmities and thus could not be sustained.
5. Having thus examined all aspects of the matter we find that no exception could be taken to the impugned revisional judgment of the learned High Court. These petitions are therefore dismissed. .