SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---This Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.01.2013 of the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No.703 of 2009, filed by the present Petitioners was dismissed.
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the lis at hand are that the predecessor-in-interest of the present Petitioners purchased the property in dispute from one Ilam Din. The predecessor- in-interest of the Respondents filed a Suit for pre-emption qua the aforesaid sale, which was decreed.
3. In the above backdrop, the Petitioners filed a Suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction that they were owners in possession of the property in dispute and the Suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents was collusive with the Petitioners in order to defeat the pre-emption rights of a third party and it was understood that the Petitioners would be the real owners of the property in dispute and the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents was only an ostensible owner. The Respondents on being summoned did not appear and were proceeded ex parte. Where after, the evidence was recorded. However, the learned Trial Court seized of the matter, dismissed the Suit vide judgment and decree dated 25.01.2008. Aggrieved, the Petitioners filed an appeal, which failed to find favour and was also dismissed vide appellate judgment and decree dated 26.01.2009. Whereupon, the Petitioners invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the learned Lahore High Court by filing Civil Revision No.703 of 2009, which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 14.01.2013.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and perused the available record.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that since the Respondents/Defendants did not appear to defend the Suit before the learned Trial Court; therefore, the Suit should have been decreed under Order IX, Rule 6, C.P.C. Even otherwise, the Petitioners/Plaintiffs had succeeded in proving their case.
6. Merely because the Respondents/Defendants did not appear to defend suit. The Petitioners' Suit could not have been decreed in the facts and circumstances of the case. On the basis of the evidence or rather the lack thereof, the learned Trial Court concluded that the Petitioners have failed to prove their case of being real owners of the property in dispute and thus dismissed the Suit. Such finding of fact was affirmed in appeal by the learned first Appellate Court and the learned High Court through a detailed reasoning has maintained the judgments of the learned Courts below by way of the impugned judgment. The concurrent and consistent findings of the three learned Courts below appear to be based on the evidence available on the record and supported by the sound reasoning. No misreading, non-reading of evidence or other illegality has been pointed out so as to persuade us to interfere in the matter.
7. Consequently, this Civil Petition being without substance is dismissed and leave declined.