1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-Facts, 1Cadrtg to, the filing to this petition briefly stated 'are that petitioner tiled a suit in the court. Of Qazi, Bhag for declaration and mandatory injunction regarding correction of revenue entries of Tehsil Jhal Magsi contending that property entered into Khasra No.96 measuring 20 rods 20 poles situated in Mouza Khabar Tehsil Jhal Magsi belonging to Sikandar Ali Khan son of Sardar Yousuf Ali Khan Magsi was given to him for cultivations etc. As a Buzgar (tenant) and since then he has been in cultivation possession but in 1965 the area was entered in settlement record in the name of respondents by fraudulent means. Respondents denied these allegations, and on the basis of the evidence recorded in the case learned Qazi dismissed the suit. However petitioner's appeal was accepted by Majlis-e-Shoora, Sibi Division vide judgment, dated 19-3-1987 against which respondents filed a revision application which was allowed by the Baluchistan High Court by the impugned judgment dated 23-12-1087. The reasons that prevailed with the learned Judge in the High Court who decided the revision application may be usefully reproduced hereunder:-- "I have gone through the aforesaid authority which is inapt in the present ease. From the contents of the plaint and statements of P.Ws. It becomes evidently manifest that respondent No.1 Fazal Muhammad (petitioner herein) was present at the time of settlement operation in the area when petitioners were entered as Bazgars. He took no steps for correcting the entries in his favour. He slept over his rights for long 20 years. He has also not proved that he was in joint possession of the lands in dispute. Therefore it cannot be said that the authority referred to hereinabove is applicable to the facts of the present case.
2. I, therefore, conclude that in view of the statements of the plaintiff's own witnesses as well as from reading of the plaint it is evident that the suit was desperately barred by time, the same therefore, could not have been entertained.
3. The members of Majlis-e-Shoora have not legally and properly appreciated this legal proposition and have drawn hypothetical and illegal conclusions."
4. After having gone through the record of the case in the light of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner we find that no exception in law or facts can be taken with the view that has prevailed with the High Court.
5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.