' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioners are aggrieved by concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court, affirmed by the A appellate Court and reaffirmed in civil revision by the Lahore High Court.
2. Respondent-Nazar Hussain filed a suit for declaration, setting aside consent decree, dated 5-2- 1972 and permanent injunction against the petitioners way back in 1973. Essentially, it was the case of the respondent that the consent decree in the earlier suit was obtained by fraud, collusion and misrepresentation. Suit was hotly contested. Issues were struck. On assessment of the evidence, trial Court through judgment dated 31-3-1980 decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree, which was dismissed on 16-7-1981. Similar was the fate of civil revision preferred by the petitioners vide judgment, dated 19-6-2000, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is vigorously contended that there was a valid compromise in the earlier round of the suit and the decree, dated 5-2-1972 was legal and proper and it could not be struck down at the whims of the respondent and that the possession of the land, in pursuance of the transaction of sale, has throughout remained with the petitioners.
Learned counsel agitated that had the respondent acquired ownership and title to the land in suit, he would have been in physical possession of the suit-land, which has remained throughout with the petitioners. When called upon to explain from the record whether the question of possession was pleaded in the written statement and agitated at the trial of the suit, learned counsel was unable to make any positive statement. Indeed, he is constrained to admit that there was no issue on the question of possession and the issues settled at the trial were confined to the transaction of sale, validity or otherwise of consent decree and the mutation consequent upon the passing of the decree. Since the question of fact raised by the learned counsel was not taken before the forums below and there is no finding for or against it, we are not inclined to enter into a disputed question of fact in the exercise of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. Suffice it to observe that the Courts below have analysed and scanned the evidence with care, caution and circumspection.
4. In our view, the impugned judgments do not suffer from any inherent legal infirmity and no question of law of public importance is raised in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.