1. ' MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against judgment dated 26-11-1995 delivered by Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No,296 of 1995.
2. ' Respondent Muhammad Irshad Bajwa filed a suit against the petitioners, for a declaration that he had become owner of the suit property mentioned in his plaint, which initially belonged to Noor Hussain and Karam Din, who had sold the same to Muhammad Sultan in whose footsteps the respondent came after his suit for pre-emption against said sale was decreed. Grievance of the respondent in the suit was, that the petitioners were interfering with this possession and they were not allowing him to cut trees standing on the suit land. Respondent also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with use of the disputed trees on the suit land.
3. ' The suit was contested by the petitioners, who in their written statement claimed the suit property to have been allotted in favour of the Forest Department on 10-2-1948 and 24-2-1953. Petitioners also averred that Forest Department to whom the suit land was sold on 29-7-1965 by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, was not bound by any allotment of the same in favour of any person.
4. The trial Court settled the issues on the point of title of the respondent over the suit land and its trees, about maintainability of the suit and about the Forest Department being allottee of the disputed land or owner of the trees. Respondent adduced the evidence, but no evidence was adduced by the petitioners. On 25-1-1993, the suit was decreed but such decree and judgment were set aside by the Additional District Judge, who remanded the case on 27-1-1994 to the trial Court to provide opportunity to the petitioners to adduce evidence. Even after remand, the petitioners were afforded sufficient opportunity to produce evidence. The petitioners examined Syed Farrukh Riaz as witness, but did not lead any further evidence and their side was closed under Order 17 Rule 3 of C.P.C. On 1-3-1994. Ultimately, the suits was again decreed on 25-9-1994. The judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 25-9-1994 were maintained in Appeal No,135 of 1994 by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot and in Civil Revision No,296 of 1995 by the High Court. Hence this petition.
5. ' Mr. Muhammad Anwar Ghuman, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners had not been afforded sufficient opportunity to lead evidence and that the suit property belonging to Forest Department could not have been allotted to anybody else.
6. ' Mr. Taqi Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the respondent argued that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners to adduce evidence, but besides examining one witness they did not lead any evidence. Learned counsel defended the judgments of the Courts below:-- ' In respect of non-providing of sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence, the High Court observed in the impugned judgment as follows:- "...Perusal of the record shows that the petitioners have been pursuing their case negligently throughout. In the first instance they did not produce any oral evidence and after remand of the case, they only produced one witness Syed Farrukh Riaz as D.W.1. No other witness or documents were produced. Even during the pendency of the appeal petitioners did not submit any application for recording any additional evidence and even during the hearing of the civil revision counsel for the petitioners was asked if he has any document to establish his claim of ownership of the property, he can place it on record but he frankly admitted that he was not in possession of any such document."
7. ' The evidence brought on record in respect of claim of Forest Department over the suit land, has been discussed and appraised by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot in the following words:-- '...In support of these documents, the defendants have placed on file documents Exh.D.1 to Exh.D.13 and mark-A to mark-E. The plaintiff while appearing as P.W.2 has clearly stated that their land is Muslim property it is not evacuee property. If the custodian had given any area to the Forest Department that was Hindu property. Their land is not included in that area. Neither the defendants acquired their land for plantation nor it was ever notified. The Forest Department has not purchased the disputed land. The defendants have not sold grass etc of the disputed land. In cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the Forest Department is in possession of suit land since 1948. He stated that before their possession through the court the suit land was in possession of Muhammad Sultan. The trees were planted by the previous owners.
8. ' On the other hand, D.W.1 has admitted in cross-examination that under policy No,CEPT 1824 dated 10-2-1948 only the evacuee property can be taken for the purposes of plantation. It is correct that the Paira forest is comprised on 159 acres and the entire forest is comprised on Hindu property.
9. ' From the documents available on the file it is not found that the Forest Department is the allottee of disputed area or the same is notified area and is reserved for the Forest Department. No doubt Khasra Girdawari produced by the parties shows the existence of but it is nowhere mentioned in these documents that forest belongs to the Forest Department."
10. ' In respect of title of the respondent vis-a-vis the suit property, the learned Additional District Judge has discussed and appraised the evidence in the following words:-- '...The plaintiff in support of issue No,1 deposed that they got the suit land through pre-emption in 1964. Finally the matter was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and they got the possession by filing an execution petition. The trees on the suit land belong to them and these were also in existence at the time of filing execution petition. The Patwari Halqa delivered them the possession on the spot. The Forest Department or any other department has no concern with this land. Neither it is evacuee property nor it has been acquired by any department. In cross- examination the plaintiff stated that they filed preemption suit against Sultan. Sultan purchase this land from Noora and Karam Din. It was their ancestral property. In support of this version the plaintiff has placed on file copies of register of rights Exh.P.1, Exh.P.3, Exh.P.4, Exh.P.5, Exh.P.6, Exh.P.7, Exh.P.8, Exh.P.9, Exh.P.10, Exh.P.11, Exh.P.12 and Exh.P.13. From all these documents it reveals that the plaintiff alongwith one Faqir Ullah s/o Ch. Baray Khan became the owner of suit land by the decree of possession through pre-emption and now after the death of Faqir Ullah, his legal heirs defendants Nos.3 to 12 have become the owners of suit land alongwith the plaintiff."
11. No fault was found with appreciation of the evidence by the Trial Court or by the Appellate Court.
12. The High Court took view that the Courts below had come to concurrent findings after taking into consideration the entire evidence placed on record and that no irregularity or illegality was committed by the Courts below.
13. ' In the circumstances, no case is made out for interference and this petition stands dismissed.