' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment, dated 7-11- 2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby his Civil Revision No,1684 of 1998 was dismissed.
2. On 4-11-1981, the petitioner instituted a suit against respondent for possession of land measuring 24 Kanals and 1 Marla as described in the headnote of the plaint. The civil suit of the petitioner was decreed by the Civil Judge, Chunian, by judgment and decree, dated 23-5-1987. The respondent preferred an appeal thereagainst which was allowed by the District Judge, Kasur, by judgment and decree dated 16-7-1988., Consequently, the civil suit of the petitioner was dismissed and judgment and decree, dated 23-5-1987 of the Civil Judge, Chunian, was set aside. The petitioner filed Civil Revision No,1694-D of 1988, which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, by the impugned judgment, dated 7-11-2000.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the sale of the suit-land was not proved by the respondent and that the Mutation No,407 attested on 14-3-1966 in favour of the respondent was fraudulent and fictitious.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the available record. We find that mutation of sale of property for consideration of Rs,18,000 was sanctioned as back as on 14-3-1966 whereas the petitioner instituted a suit after a period of over 15 years in 1981 for which no plausible explanation was given. During course of trial, Liaqat Ali, Patwari appeared as D.W.1 who had entered the mutation in dispute. He testified about the factum of sale of the suit property by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. Similarly, D.W.3 Chando and D.W.4 Abdul Aleem had also categorically stated that sale of the suit property was effected by the petitioner in favour of the respondent and consideration amount was paid in their presence. Needless to observe that Abdul Aleem D.W.4 was also Sarbrah Lambardar of the village and was naturally present at the time the mutation in question was attested. The First Appellate Court as well as the High Court after proper appreciation of evidence of the parties, recorded concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner had in fact sold out his land to the respondent. In our view, the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.