RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against High Court order dated 3.10.2000 dismissing petitioner's review application against order dated 17.9.1999 whereby petitioner's Civil Revision No. 1308-D of 1998 was dismissed with an observation that after the withdrawal of the earlier civil revision directed against the concurrent findings of fact, second civil revision was not maintainable at law.
2. Precisely stated, petitioner withdrew civil revision No. 1146 of 1998 arising out of a suit for declaration filed by him, which was disposed of on 30.6.1998 by Lahore High Court in following term:- "Malik Ijaz Gorcha, Advocate Seeks to withdraw this petition with an intention to file an application under Section 12(2) of C.P.C.
Before the forum of competent jurisdiction. Order accordingly. Disposed of as requested."
3. Instead of moving an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. Before the competent Court, petitioner instituted another Civil Revision No. 1308-D of 1998, which was dismissed on 17.9.1999 by a learned judge in Chambers with the observation that after disposal of the first civil revision as withdrawn, second revision petition against the same order was not maintainable. Petition was disposed of with the observation that the petitioner shall be entitled to move an appropriate application for recall/review ,of the earlier order, if so advised. Petitioner accordingly filed a review application before The High Court, which was heard by a Division Bench and dismissed vide order dated 3.10.2000, leading to the present petition.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order as well as the record. Without entering into the controversy and deciding the question whether the second revision petition against same order was barred by principle res judicata, suffice it to observe that even on merits the petitioner has no case to succeed in view of the observations made by the Appellate Court in para 8 of the judgment dated 30.4.1998. From the record we find that the petitioner had all along challenged mutation No. 161 (Exh.P.1) transferring the suit land for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-. The transaction was entered by Patwari on 7.9.1992 and mutation sanctioned by the Revenue Officer the next day. It further appears that other mutations by the petitioner, sanctioned on the same day, were not questioned by the petitioner, which clinches the matter as to the genuineness of the transaction.
5. There are concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court, which do not suffer from legal infirmity, error of law or jurisdiction. Conclusions drawn by the Courts below did not justify any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court and are not open to any exception in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of ,this Court. Findings of fact, in our view, are based on correct, careful and elaborate appreciation of the material on record and we are satisfied that complete justice has been done to the parties.
6. For these reasons, we do not find any Merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.