ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: --The petitioners alongwith respondent No.34 filed a suit against respondents Nos. 1 to 33 claiming perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land measuring 110 Kanals 19 Marlas situate in Moza Kala Gujran, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi. The suit was filed on the averments that the suit land belonged to the respondents 1 to 33 who had leased out the said land for the purpose of Brick-Kiln by an oral agreement to respondent No.34 who entered into a partnership with the petitioner with the consent of respondents Nos. 1 to 33. The suit was contested by the respondents. Alongwith the suit, the petitioners had filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Which was granted by the trial Judge with respect to a part of the suit land. The petition was dismissed with respect to the land not covered by the lease. The petitioners filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge who dismissed the same on 19-12-1988. A civil revision was filed in the High Court under section 115, C.P.C. Which was also dismissed by judgment dated 23-1-1989. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. It is an admitted position that respondents Nos.1 to 33 are the owners of the land. An interim injunction was granted in respect of the land which was given on lease to Tauqir Shah. The owner respondents had not entered into any agreement with the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were in possession of the land on which Brick-Kiln was functioning. This is no ground to interfere with the concurrent finding of the Courts below. The respondent-owners had not accepted the claim of the petitioners.
The petitioners had based their claim on the title of Tauqir Shah but Tauqir Shah had not been given the entire land. There is no material evidence which has been excluded by the Courts below.
There is no force in this petition. Leave to appeal is refused.