1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant, in a suit for possession through redemption, against the dismissal by the High Court of his Civil Revision. The petitioner has lost the case throughout.
2. ' The only question now raised before this Court by the learned counsel, is that full compensation for improvements has not been awarded in favour of the petitioner nor he was afforded adequate opportunity to lead evidence in this behalf. The argument as advanced before the High Court and its treatment in the impugned judgment are reproduced below-- "It is contended by the learned counsel that a sum of Rs,2 lacs has been claimed as the value of the improvements made on the land, the trial Court erred in law in allowing Rs,5,400. The precise grievance is that no opportunity had been allowed to the petitioner to produce evidence and the entire reliance has been placed on the report of the Local Commissioner/Referee As the petitioner neither asked for production of any evidence nor did he insist on framing an issue about the point raised and as the trial Court acted on the report of the Local Commissioner/referee, it is too late in the day to accept the contention that it is the Court which failed to perform its duty. It was the duty of the petitioner to have at least asked the Court to examine, if there was any evidence with him or if he wanted to produce any."
3. When confronted with the observations of the High Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner remained unable to press the petition any further. However, on our questioning with regard to the details of the improvements, we have not been able to find any serious impropriety on merits in the impugned order, either. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.