HAMID ALI MIRZA, J. -- This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.3.2001 in Civil Revision No. 283 of 1990 whereby said revision was dismissed by The learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff Ahmad Ali filed Suit No. 190 of 1986 in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class, Gujrat for possession in respect of property in question on the ground that he was the owner of the said property the possession of which was temporarily given to the petitioner/defendant who thereafter refused to hand over the possession of the same to the respondent/plaintiff and forcibly started raising construction on it. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement wherein he stated that he was in possession of the suit property since 27.2.1967 and had purchased the same alongwith other property through an oral sale and that his possession was in adverse to that of the respondent/plaintiff and further that he had raised construction over the property which was worth lacs of rupees. The learned Civil Judge settled as many as nine issues. After recording evidence and hearing counsel for the parties, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the respondent who thereafter preferred an Appeal No. 30 of 1989 which was allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat on 20.1.1990 and the suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed. The petitioner preferred Civil Revision No. 283 of 1990 before the Lahore High Court which was heard by. Learned Judge in Chambers on 31.3.2001 and was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. Contentions of the learned counsel for petitioner are that the .Learned Additional District Judge had no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the appeal in respect of property in dispute consequently said judgment and decree were without jurisdiction so also judgment of, learned Judge in Chambers and further that there was no evidence with regard to identification of the property allegedly belonging to the respondent therefore decree for possession of the property in dispute was not sustainable. The learned counsel has taken us through the evidence on record.
5. We do not find substance and merit in the said contentions of the learned counsel for petitioner.
The learned Civil Judge in his finding under issue No. 6 had held that the respondent/plaintiff had properly valued the suit in the sum of Rs. 24,000/- for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction and the said finding was upheld by first Appellate Court in his judgment dated 20.1.1990. The said concurrent finding of fact cannot be disturbed as same is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. So far the identification of property, the respondent/plaintiff in plaint as well as in evidence has mentioned about his share in khasra No. 889 of the disputed land belonging to him so also first Appellate Court in para-19 of the judgment held that it was not necessary to file separate map alongwith plaint. There is no misreading or non-reading of the evidence therefore the said contention has no substance. The petitioner on one hand has claimed ownership on the basis of adverse possession and on the other hand has pleaded that he had purchased the property through oral sale from Imam Din which defence of the petitioner was in contradictory under the law.
6. We find that learned Additional District Judge and the learned Judge in Chambers have properly appreciated the evidence and law and have correctly arrived- at concurrent finding of fact, therefore, no interference is required by this Court consequently leave to appeal is declined and petition is dismissed.