1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 16-11-2001 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereupon C.M. No.1664 of 2001 for the recall of earlier order, dated 27-6-2001 was dismissed.
2. ' The facts briefly narrated are that the respondents filed a suit for declaration on 8-1-1989. The same was contested by the petitioners/defendants and out of contradictory pleadings of the parties Issues were framed. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment/decree, dated 21-3-1993. The petitioners filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment on 15-4-1993. The petitioners after two years of the filing of appeal on 19-4-1995 moved an application under Order LXI, Rule 27, C.P.C. For permission to produce additional evidence. This application was contested by the other side and the learned District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, vide his order, dated 10-4-1996 dismissed the same. The petitioners preferred Civil Revision No.436-D of 1996 taking exception to the order of dismissal of their application filed under Order LXI, Rule 27, C.P.C. By the learned District Judge. The said civil revision came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 27-6-2001 and the same was dismissed as not pressed on the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
3. ' Thereafter the petitioners moved C.M. No.1664 of 2001 for the recall of above order, dated 27-6- 2001, which has been dismissed through the impugned order, dated 16-11-2001. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. He has simply stated that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the High Court had withdrawn the civil revision on the assumption that the parties had compromised the matter. However, he has not annexed with the petition any certificate or affidavit from the said Advocate to substantiate his above stance. Even otherwise, we have noticed that the order passed by the learned District Judge is perfectly just and proper.
5. ' In this view of the matter, we see no justification to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave declined.