KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.---The petitioners impugn the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby civil revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed whereas, civil revision filed by the respondents was accepted and the judgment and decree dated 3-10-2000 passed by the trial Court was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a road was constructed by the petitioners on Kars No, 1702 situated in village Nuraghi, Tehsil Talagang, District Chakwal, measuring 6 canals, 17 marls which was owned and possessed by the respondents without their knowledge and consent. The respondents/defendants filed suit on 15-11-1986, which was decreed declaring the respondents as owners of the land and also compensation amount of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) was awarded. The appeal filed by the petitioners was partly allowed only to the extent that the compensation amount is reduced from Rs,1,00,000 to Rs,16,000. The petitioners as well as respondents questioned the said judgment by filing the civil revisions before the High Court. The civil revision filed by the respondents was accepted, whereas the civil revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed, which order has been impugned through this petition.
3. Heard Mr. Razzaq A. Mirza, Additional Advocate-General Punjab appearing for the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Courts below did not appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and that the trial Court as well as the High Court without giving any cogent reasons awarded compensation amount of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) to the petitioners.
5. We have taken into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the available record. From perusal of the record, it appears that admittedly the petitioners have constructed the road over the land of the respondents without their consent and alleged that the said land was gifted to the petitioners by respondents, which plea was not accepted by the trial Court, Appellate Court and Provisional Court.
6. As regards the question of compensation, it appears that the respondents were dispossessed from the land in question sometime in the year 1983. The petitioners claimed manse profit at the rate of Rs,2,000 per annum with interest on it The learned trial Court after recording the evidence keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the road has already been constructed over the land in question since long instead of granting manse profit awarded a sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) as compensation, which order was upheld by the High Court.
7. Grant of leave is a matter of discretion and is not of a right. The provisions of Article 185(3) of the Constitution did not impose any limitation as to the circumstances, which would justify interference for grant of leave to appeal. The conduct of the petitioners would have substantial bearing on the question of leave to appeal or otherwise. This Court is not of appeal while exercising power under Article 185(3) of the Constitution to re-appraise the evidence, except in exceptional circumstances.
Admittedly the petitioners have dispossessed the respondents from their land in question in the year 1983, despite decree of the suit not a single penny has been paid to the respondents for the last more than 27 years.
8. Having considered the matter from all angles in the light of material available on file, we are of the view that the impugned judgment is eminently reasonable and proceeds on cogent ground.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity legal or factual in the impugned judgment, which would justify interference.
' For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave is refused.