' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.-Petitioner, Syed Iftikhar Hussain Zaidi, seeks leave to appeal against impugned judgment dated 24-3-1998 passed by a learned Single Judge in Chamber of the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No, 87 of 1993 whereby the same was dismissed.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that suit property measuring 79 Kanals. 4 Marlas situated in Village Raichand, Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang was owned by the father of the petitioner who transferred the same to him vide gift deed, dated 28-1-1989. Since the respondents tried to interfere in the peaceful possession and vested Tight of the petitioner, as such, he filed a civil suit for declaration in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Chiniot, District Jhang to the effect that he may be declared to be owner in possession of the suit-land on account of gift deed executed in his favour by his father. The respondents filed their written statements and denied the assertions.. The trial Court framed issues on 14-4-1990 and thereafter afforded several opportunities to the petitioner to produce evidence but he failed and consequently suit was dismissed on 29-4-1992 under Order 17, rule 3, C.P.C. The petitioner appealed in the Court of learned District Judge, Jhang which too was dismissed on 21-12-1992, 'whereafter Civil Revision No,87 of 1993 was filed in the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore that too was dismissed on 24-3-1998.
3. We have heard Mr. Rafique Ahmad Bajwa, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner and have gone through impugned judgment as well as record of proceedings in minute particulars.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that petitioner produced witnesses before the trial Court on 29-4-1992 but they were not examined by the trial Court and closed his evidence under Order 17, rule 3, C.P.C. And dismissed the suit. He also referred to the diary dated 3- 2-1991 of the trial Court and stated that on that date also witnesses of the petitioner were present, as such, the learned High Court while dismissing the civil revision has misread the same.
5. The above-referred diaries on perusal show that on 3-2-1991 Malik Shahbaz, Stamp papers vendor was not in attendance, as such, a request was placed for adjourning the case in the interest of justice by the petitioner which was allowed. On 29-4-1992 the P.Ws. Were present but the petitioner requested about their examination at 12 o'clock and the matter was kept aside and the matter was taken up at 12 o'clock but further request was made to delay the same for another half hour which was allowed. When the matter was called lastly none of the witnesses were in attendance, as such, the suit of the petitioner was closed.
6. Irrespective of above, the mutation of inheritance has been effected in the names of the petitioner, respondents, and the ladies the L. Rs, of the deceased. Admittedly petitioner has not availed the remedies available to him under the West Pakistan Revenue Act, 1967 by challenging the said mutation, which had thus become final.
7. The learned counsel has failed to point out any illegality or misreading in the impugned judgment as such, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal.
' Accordingly, leave to appeal is declined and the petition is dismissed.