' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Leave to appeal is claimed against the judgment, dated 9-5-2001 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the petitioners'
Civil Revision No,1731 of 1995 was dismissed and the result was that the concurrent findings of both the Courts below the High Court that the transactions of redemption and sale were collusive, without consent of the plaintiff, are based on proper appreciation of evidence and warrant no interference.
2. There is no need for entering into any detailed examination of other facts of the cause here. We suffice by observing that the findings of the learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, are that in the absence of any misreading or non-reading of material evidence on record, the jurisdiction of the High Court under clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of section 115, C.P.C. Is not attracted. When the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was drawn to the assertion in the memo. Of this petition that the evidence was either misread or not read at all and he was asked to point out any such situation, he was not in a position to pinpoint or even so much as refer to any such situation with particularity. It is trite law that if the judgments impugned/challenged by a litigant before a High Court under section 115, C.P.C. Concurrently resolve a controversy of facts one way or the other, the same cannot be interfered with by the High Court. This is exactly what has been done by the learned Judge in Chambers while passing the impugned judgment dated 9-5-2001.
3. No other point was urged.
4. There is no force in this petition which is dismissed and leave refused.