1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---The defendant side has sought leave to appeal; against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court. It had arisen out of respondents' suit for concellation of mutation proceedings and also for possession of the suit land.
2. ' One Muhammad Ali having died petitioners claimed inheritance as sole heirs to the exclusion of Sakhi Muhammad respondent No,1 who claimed to be the pre-deceased son of Muhammad Ali.
3. Although Muhammad Ali, as stated by the learned counsel, had died after coming into force of the Family Laws Ordinance; and by virtue of section 4 thereof, Sakhi Muhammad would have inherited the share which would have gone to his pre-deceased father if he would have been alive on the death of Muhammad Ali; yet the plea pressed from petitioners' side is that Sakhi Muhammad's mother was not married to Qudratullah who was the son of Muhammad Ali.
4. ' The learned trial Court dismissed respondents/plaintiffs' suit on the finding that he was not grand- son of Muhammad Ali. His appeal was allowed and the findings of fact adverse to his claim were set aside. His suit was decreed. A learned Judge in the High Court dismissed the petitioners' civil revision on the finding that the dispute raised was one of pure fact which stood concluded by proper findings rendered by the appellate Court. There being no misreading or non-reading of evidence the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court was not attracted.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has in support of this petition tried to show that the findings of fact impugned in this petition rendered by the appellate Court and affirmed by the High Court were the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence.
6. ' After hearing him in this behalf we have not been able to discover any error of law or principle in so far as the findings of fact are concerned. The reliance was placed by the learned counsel on Mst.Farishta v. The Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law, Islamabad PLD 1980 Pesh. 47 which is of no help to the petitioners. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.