' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 4-11-2003 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore upheld the determination of the learned Additional District Judge, Bhalwal, whereby a declaratory suit filed by the respondents was decreed.
2. Facts briefly are that the respondents filed a declaratory suit on 13-1-1992 taking exception to the mutations. Out of contradictory pleadings, issues were framed and the parties led their evidence.
The learned trial Court through its judgment dated 5-3-1996 dismissed the suit. The respondents being aggrieved filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court which was accepted vide judgment, dated 16-10-2000. The present petitioners-defendants filed a revision petition before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 4-11- 2003. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the petitioners totally failed to substantiate the sale transactions or payment of consideration.
The evidence brought on record by the petitioners does not inspire confidence and is contradictory in nature. The learned Single Judge of .The Lahore High Court, Lahore, after careful examination of the record has rightly been maintained the earlier determination of the learned Additional District Judge, Bhalwal. The operative part thereof is as under:-- "(3) I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below, perused the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. There is no witness of the sale transaction and the payment of sale consideration except Muhammad Riaz, defendant who appeared as D.W.1.
There is no documentary evidence regarding payment of sale consideration. D.W.2 Muhammad Yar admitted in cross-examination that the sale consideration was not paid in his presence nor was he present at the time of sale bargain. In the absence of the any independent evidence the bald statement of one of the defendant cannot be accepted to prove the sale. Muhammad Yaqoob, the brother of plaintiffs who identified his sisters/plaintiffs before the Revenue Officer at the time of attestation of mutation was not produced as witness nor the Revenue Officer was produced by the defendants/petitioners. No effect was made by defendants/ petitioners to get the thumb-impressions of the respondents on the Mutation No,4343 compared with the actual thumb-impressions of the plaintiffs from a Finger Print Expert.
As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Additional District Judge did not decide the appeal issue-wise, suffice to say that the entire evidence has been discussed by the learned Additional District Judge and the findings have been given on all the points."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality, misreading or non- reading in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any force, is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal declined.