1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 14-6-1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No,943-D of 1986 filed by the petitioner was dismissed maintaining the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
2. ' The facts briefly stated are that Fazal Karim deceased filed a declaratory suit through his sister Mst. Naimat Bibi, his next friend, averring therein that the registered sale-deed, dated 29-7-1978 allegedly executed in favour of the respondent Mian Muhammad Ashraf was based on fraud, without consideration and having been executed by an insane person. The respondent/defendant contested the suit and out of pleadings of the parties, Issues were framed. The parties led their evidence and the learned Civil Judge, Kharian; through his judgment, dated 14-2-1981 dismissed the suit. The petitioner filed an appeal assailing the above judgment, which was dismissed by the learned Additional. District Judge, Gujrat, vide his judgment, dated 12-1-1986. Civil Revision No,943-D of 1986 preferred by the petitioner also met the same fate as it was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through his order, dated 14-6-1999, impugned herein.
3. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
4. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have perused the documents placed on record with his assistance. He has half-heartedly argued this matter. He has failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge maintaining the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The disputed sale-deed was said to have been executed on 29-7-1978 and the learned Single Judge of the High Court has come to a definite conclusion that the plea of insanity was taken simply to deprive the respondent/defendant of their valuable rights. It would be appropriate at this stage to make reference of the observations made by the learned Single Judge to another sale-deed (Exh.D.2) by the said Fazal Karim. The same are as under:-- ' "Here I cannot help referring to Exh.D.2 which is a sale-deed executed by Fazal Karim just a few months prior to the impugned sale-deed (Exh.D.1 dated 29-7-1978) and admitted by Mst. Naimat Bibi (P.W.3) meaning thereby the plea of the petitioner with regard to his insanity is thought to deprive the respondent of the benefit of sale made in his favour by Fazal Karim. As far as execution of impugned sale-deed is concerned, I found that two marginal witnesses and scribe appeared in the witness-box and they were firm on the point of execution of the deed and its registration, thus the execution of impugned sale-deed is proved beyond any doubt. The citation 1992 CLC 807 quoted by learned counsel for petitioner could not be made applicable to the facts of the instant case as in that case neither the scribe nor any marginal witness was produced by the defendants.
5. But is not so in the present case as observed above. It is now well-settled that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence, unless perverse or arbitrary, are immune from scrutiny in an application under section 115, C.P.C. Reference may be made to Abdul Hakeem v. Habibullah and 11 others (1997 SCMR 1150, Jam Pari v. Mohammad Abdullah (1992 SCM R 786) and Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994 SC 291).
6. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being without any merit is dismissed and leave declined.