1. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.---Muhammad Siddiq, his brother Nazar Muhammad, their cousin Nur Muhammad and Muhammad Ibrahim filed a Constitution petition in the erstwhile High Court of Pakistan at Lahore against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 14-5-63. The Constitution petition was dismissed by a learned Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan against which a Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the petitioners. That too was dismissed by judgment dated 1-4-85.
2. Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Siddiq now seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Letters Patent Bench.
3. Both the learned Judge as well as the Letters Patent Bench discussed the facts, claim and entitlement of the parties thoroughly. The Constitution petition was dismissed because, "The, order was passed against the petitioners on the 6th of May 1961 in the second revision petition and they approached this Court only some time in October, 1963. This inordinate delay stands unexplained because no interest is shown to have been taken by Nazar Muhammad to pursue his aforesaid review petition. If as a matter of fact any such review petition still awaits disposal at the hands of the Settlement Officers, the writ petition is premature and merits dismissal on this short ground."
4. When the matter came up before the Letters Patent Bench, the aforesaid observation made by the learned Single Judge was confirmed.
5. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 14-5-63 after inspection of the spot, observed as under:-- "The division and the demarcation of the property among the parties have already been made by the Settlement and Reh. Commr. Vide his orders, dated 18-11-60. The only thing which remains at present is to determine the rent of each portion as directed by A&R.C. All the shops, more or less being equal in dimension are assessed as follows: (1)Muhammad Siddiq and Nazar Muhammad jointlyRs.20.
6. (2)Noor Muhammad. Rs.20.
7. (3)Muhammad Ibrahim. (Rs.20.
8. (4)Muhammad Amir. Rs.21."
9. It was this order which was upheld by the High Court.
10. Learned counsel was unable to point out any error of law in the impugned judgment. No case is made out for leave to appeal.
11. Dismissed.