IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.--- This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is directed against the order dated 6.8.1999 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Writ Petition No. 7353 of 1999.
2. The facts are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for pre- emption in respect of the suit land on the ground of being a tenant. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court. On appeal the decree was set aside. The Revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the Appellate Court was dismissed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. Same was the fate of the Writ Petition filed in the High Court. Thereafter, the petitioner. Approached this Court, whereupon his case was remanded to the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) for decision afresh. On remand, the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner was not a tenant. This order has been upheld by the Board of Revenue as well as by the High Court vide the impugned order dated 6.8.1999.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) was wrong in holding that the petitioner had not produced any documentary evidence to show the correction of Khasra Girdawari in his favour. It was further argued that the impugned order is based on misreading of the evidence on record, inasmuch as, it has been conceded by the DWs that Gul Muhammad petitioner had been cultivating the land in dispute.
4. We have perused the evidence. DW-I has stated that the land in dispute had been under cultivating possession of sons of Gul Muhammad and he was neither the tenant nor at any time he personally cultivated the land. This is clearly stated by DW-I and DW-2. Be that as it may, the learned Judge in Chambers has correctly declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below in the exercise of his Constitutional jurisdiction. When faced with this the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Judge in Chambers has erred in holding that the petitioner had not produced any documentary evidence to show the correction of Khasra Girdawari in his favour. This plea is again not sustainable as is evident from paragraph 4 of the impugned order, which 'reads thus: "4. Admittedly, the sale-deed was sanctioned on 20.5.1978 and on the said date, there is no entry of petitioner's name in the relevant column of the Revenue Record, the so-called order of correction of Khasra Girdawari is dated 26.12.1978 (to which reference has been made in Rapt which is much after the sale-deed. Reading of Roznamcha Waqiati which is at page 64 of the petitioner indicates that the Deputy Commissioner had not passed any order on merit but the order had been passed on the so-called compromise between the petitioner and Ismail co-sharer of the land in question.
The relevant portion of the Rapt Roznamcha is being reproduced below: {{URDU TEXT}}
5. Clearly the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to appreciation of evidence which cannot he undertaken in these proceedings. The learned Judge in Chamber was right in holding that the petitioner being party to the sale transaction was estopped to file the suit.
6. No case is made out for interference with the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court.
7. Resultantly, leave is declined and the .