1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 14-2-2001 whereby petitioners Civil Revision No,592 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge maintaining the concurrent findings of the two Courts below i.e, the learned Additional District Judge as well as learned Civil Judge, Bahawlnagar.
2. ' Facts briefly are that the respondents filed a declaratory suit, on 28-7-1985 taking exception to the alleged oral sale of land measuring 25 Kanals to the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners vide Mutation No,329, dated 9-9-1981 being illegal, void and of no effect. This was contested and the issues were framed. The parties produced their evidence. The learned trial Judge vide judgment, dated 12-2-1989 decreed the suit. The petitioners' predecessor-in-interest filed appeal and the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment/decree, dated 29-6-1999 accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the trial Court for affording an opportunity to the parties for getting the thumb-impression examined from Finger Print Expert.
3. ' This judgment, however, was set aside by the High Court vide order, dated 17-1-1994 in Civil Revision No,373 of 1999 and directed the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits.
4. ' The learned Additional District Judge vide judgment, dated 21-4-1994 dismissed the appeal maintaining the determination of the trial Court.
5. ' Muhammad Sharif the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed Civil Revision No,592-D of 1994 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge through the impugned judgment. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
6. ' We have considered the contentions and have gone through the entire documents. We have noticed that the respondent/plaintiff produced confidence-inspiring evidence on record that the alleged oral sale through Mutation No,329 had not taken place. She has proved as a fact that she never appeared before the Revenue Authority at the time of attestation of alleged mutation.
7. It is reflected from the perusal of the documents that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was a lessee of the disputed land and he in a clandestine manner secured the mutation by playing fraud. He was a lessee of the land and got this alleged oral sale in connivance with the Revenue Staff. The two Courts below have determined a question of fact after scanning the entire evidence which has been maintained by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in the impugned judgment. The learned counsel has failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. The petition is dismissed and the leave is refused.