1. S. A. RAHMAN, J.-In this case, on a previous writ petition, the High Court remanded the case for decision of the question of fact by the Settlement authorities, as to which of the parties was in prior possession of the disputed property. The Settlement authorities, eventually found that the respondent was in prior possession and directed the transfer of .The house to him. The order of the Settlement authorities was challenged again by a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed. The petitioners now seek Special Leave to Appeal from the, order of tile High Court.
2. Mr. Ghazanfar Ali Gondal, on behalf of the petitioners was unable to satisfy us that the orders of the Settlement authorities on the point that the petitioners, or the respondent, was in prior possession of the house, were in any way open to challenge or without jurisdiction. The order was passed after considera--tion of the material placed on record by both the parties, and after giving them full hearing. Merely because another view of the evidence is possible, would furnish no ground for interferrous in writ jurisdiction. What the learned. Counsel really wants to do is to reappraise the evidence which was construed in favour of the respondent. This is not the function of this Court.
3. There is no force in this petition and it is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.