' The learned counsel for the petitioner present and heard at length.
2. Close scrutiny of the available record would show that the Patwari Halqa was examined on oath as P.W.1. He had stated nothing except to produce Fard Jamabandi for the year 1994-95 (Exh.P.W.1/1). Since the respondent was placed ex parte, therefore, P.W.1 was not cross-examined.
There is nothing on the record to suggest, even remotely, that his evidence was either tainted with malice or was the result of any ulterior motive. No reason exists and none indeed has been made out as to why he should depose falsely against the petitioner/plaintiff.
3. The petitioner has also failed 'to discharge his legal obligation/burden to establish the transaction of "oral sale" in his favour by the respondents because he failed to establish, by producing cogent evidence, and that too in ex pane proceedings, that he had actually paid the sale consideration of the disputed land, which was alleged by him to have been paid, to the respondents.
4. There is also nothing on the record to show as to when and in whose presence the land, in question, was sold to the respondents/defendants.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner remained unable to convince me that the impugned judgments are either arbitrary or perverse or that the same were the result of non-reading or misreading of evidence. The lower forums have discussed/appreciated the ex parte evidence produced by the petitioner/plaintiff in detail and have given valid reasons for arriving at correct conclusions.
6. Needless to mention that the concurrent findings of facts, by the lower forums, cannot be interfered with by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction unless it is shown that the same might result in miscarriage of justice.
7. This revision petition has no substance, and therefore, does not merit consideration, and is accordingly dismissed in limine.