1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 29-4-1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revisions Nos.1697-D and 1698-D of 1998 filed, by the petitioners were dismissed.
2. ' Facts briefly stated are that the petitioners filed a declaratory suit on 26-6-1983 claiming that roofs of the shops adjoining to the petitioners' residential portion are attached to their residential house.
3. ' Respondents Ghulam Hussain and others filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that the other party be restrained from making interference in any manner in the roofs of their shops which were independent units. Both the suits were consolidated. Issues were framed and the parties led their respective evidence. The learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad, vide his judgment, dated 18-104989 dismissed the suit of the petitioners and decreed that of the respondents. The petitioners filed two appeals against the above judgment, which were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, through his judgment, dated 28-4-1993. They preferred two civil revisions before the Lahore High Court, which were allowed and the case was remanded to the learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad for decision afresh after providing opportunity to the parties to bring further evidence on record. As reflected from the perusal of the impugned judgment, the petitioners filed certain documents. The learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad, after evaluating the entire evidence brought on record, vide his judgment, dated 19-2-1998 dismissed the suit of the petitioners and decreed that of the respondents. Two appeals were filed against the above judgment, which were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, through his judgment, dated 15-4-1998. Two civil revisions were preferred by the petitioners against the above judgment, which also met the same fate and were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through the impugned judgment. Hence, these petitions for leave to appeal.
4. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the documents annexed with the petitions carefully. We have noticed that there are concurrent findings against the petitioners in the two rounds of litigation. They have miserably failed to substantiate their claim that the roofs of the shops were part of residential portions transferred to them. In this regard it would be apt to reproduce the determination of the learned Single Judge of the High Court while dismissing their civil revisions, which is in the following terms:- ' "With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, the documentary evidence relied upon by the two sides was examined and it was observed that the findings recorded by the two Courts are in accordance with the documentary evidence on record and that the Settlement Record including the order of transfer as well as PTO, PTDs, CH Forms and other documents, do not render any assistance to the petitioners or create any impression that the roofs of shops were part of residential house. Instead, those documents clearly show that residential portion was transferred separately and the shops were transferred separately and at no point of time the allottee/transferee of the residential house was ever transferred rights of the roofs of shops for user thereof as a part of residential unit."
5. ' Resultantly, in the light of the above discussion we find no merit in the instant petition which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.