1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff, against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Civil Revision. It had arisen out of his suit for declaration seeking the annulment of a mutation of exchange on the ground of fraud.
2. ' Petitioner's suit was dismissed. His appeal failed and his Civil Revision having been dismissed for the reason that the concurrent findings of fact reached by the learned Courts below were not based either on mis-reading or non-reading of evidence. It was also held by the High Court that the possession of properties, as a result of the exchange in dispute did pass between the parties.
3. ' Learned counsel has in support of this petition contended that the learned trial Court while deciding the question regarding the form of the suit namely, whether it could be filed for declaration without seeking relief of possession, had held that the possession had not passed between the parties. Therefore, the suit for declaration simpliciter filed by the petitioner was competent. Accordingly he further argued, this finding taken to its logical ends would render the exchange incomplete and in-operative because of lack of change of possession.
4. ' Same argument was advanced before the High Court but it was repelled. Inter alia, it was also observed as follows:-- "Ghulam Haider one of the respondents deposed as P. W. 2 that the petitioner handed over possession of his land in pursuance of the exchange deed. Fateh Muhammad D.W.4 who is a close relative of both the parties supported Ghulam Haider. This evidence shows that the petitioner handed over possession of his land in implementation of the exchange."
5. ' It is clear from the above reproduced part of the impugned judgment that the High Court found as a fact that the possession had passed between the parties as a result and in implementation of the exchange.
6. ' To face this position, learned counsel tried to comment upon the finding of fact by the High Court so as to show that it needs to be set aside.
7. After hearing him in this behalf we do not agree with him. The finding A neither suffers from any error of law nor of principle. No justification having been made out for interference. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.