SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--In this petition for special leave to appeal which arises out of a suit filed by the petitioner, the dispute between the parties relates to a piece of land, measuring 3 Marlas, situate in village Tatliali of District Gujranwala. The case of the petitioner was that Muhammad Hanif, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, had sold this land to him for Rs.2,000 by an. Oral transaction and that after purchasing the land he had constructed a shop on it. The trial Court as well as the District Judge found that the alleged sale in his favour had not been established and that he was not in possession of the land. The High Court in revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere with these findings as they were based on appreciation of the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade us that these findings suffer from any infirmity.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that at the trial a number of issues were framed but the District Judge did not record his findings thereon. This is indeed so but then as the petitioner was unable to establish the sale on which he rested his claim to ownership of the land in dispute we do not think that this is a fit case where we should interfere. This petition is accordingly 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.