' On 13-9-1988 Syed Sibt-e-Hassan Shah respondent filed a suit for possession of agricultural land measuring 55 kanals and 9 marlas situate in Chak No,98/TDA Tehsil Karor, District Layyah on the basis of ownership against Province of Punjab and others, in the Court of Civil Judge Layyah. The suit was resisted whereon 4 issues were framed. The parties led evidence. The trial Court decreed the suit on 16-5-1989. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 14-2-1990, hence this revision.
2. Before me, the learned counsel has challenged the findings of the learned Courts below on all the issues which are as under: ' ISSUES:
(1) "Whether the suit is barred by time?
(2) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession on the grounds detailed in the plaint?
OPP
(4) Relief.
' The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are in continuous possession of the suit land since 1958 and as such the suit for possession filed by the respondent was barred by time and that the suit was not properly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that the suit for possession is based on the ownership and forcible dispossession within 12 years from the institution of the suit. The Courts below have concurrently found that the petitioners had occupied the suit land in Kharif 1984. Since the evidence of the defendants/petitioners was closed under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. And there is no evidence in rebuttal, therefore, there is no option but to accept the findings of the Courts below on all the issues including the issue of limitation. The learned trial Court after applying its conscious mind to the relevant facts and circumstances have found that the suit was properly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction. I do not see any cogent reason to disagree with the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading/non-reading of evidence. I do not see any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgments and decrees.
' Pursuant to the above discussion, I do not see any justification to interfere in exercise of the revisional power of this Court with the well-reasoned judgments of the Courts below. So, the revision fails and is dismissed in limine.