1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Thcse two different petitions arising out of separate judgments of Lahore High Court involve similar question. They are being disposed of together.
2. ' In C.P. 678 the petitioners-plaintiffs' plea that Khuda Bakhsh (deceased) was a Shia by faith, having failed before the revenue authorities in the mutation proceedings, their suit was also dismissed. Their Civil Revision having been dismissed by the High Court, leave to appeal has now been sought by the petitioners on the main plea that Khuda Bakhsh was a Shia by faith.
3. ' In C.P. 685 which. Has been filed by the defendant's side, the question of fact involved is reverse to the one noted above. According to the respondents-plaintiffs side Khushi Muhammad (deceased in this case) was a Shia, while the petitioners' plea was that he was a Sunni. The decision of the revenue authorities not having been considered as conclusive, the respondent's suit was decreed on the finding that Khushi Muhammad was a Shia. The appellate Court dismissed the petitioners' appeal. Their revision having also been dismissed by the High Court, they have now sought leave to appeal on the main plea that Khushi Muhammad (deceased) was a Sunni.
4. ' The main feature in both the cases is whether the High Cout, in the circumstances thereof, should have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower Courts in its .Revisional jurisdiction.
5. ' After hearing the learned counsel appearing for respective petitioners in both the cases, we have not been able to find any justification for interference with the impugned judgments. They do not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise.
6. The plea in the first case that Mst. Rani respondent therein, had made certain admissions before the revenue authorities, and, similar plea in the second case that Muhammad Ishaquc attorney of the respondents side, had made an admission before the revenue authorities having also been considered, we have not been persuaded to change the aforestated view that the findings of fact in these two cases reached by the learned two Courts below, were not such so as tort attract revisional jurisdiction of the High Court for interference therewith. Accordingly, finding no force in these two petitions, leave to appeal is refused.