1. ' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 seeking leave to appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 10-9-2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in a civil revision.
2. ' The relevant facts giving rise to this petition are that occupancy rights in the land measuring 7 Kanals, 19 Marlas situated in village Ghaur Ghushti, Attock, were mortgaged with possession vide mutation dated 25-12-1919 by one Sher Khan son of Noor Khan in favour of Khani Zaman and others for a sum of Rs,300. Later vide mutation dated 3-8-1952, Sher Khan sold his occupancy rights in favour of Azad Khan petitioner herein and thereafter a mutation of ownership was sanctioned on 13-2-1963. The petitioner having exhausted the remedies before the Revenue Authorities seeking declaration that mortgage stood redeemed, brought a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the suit-land and the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities were ineffective to his rights. The learned trial Judge in the light of the pleadings of the parties having framed number of issues ultimately dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 30-6-1987. The appeal filed by the present petitioner met the same fate and was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Attock, vide judgment dated 24-7-1990. The petitioner while invoking revisional jurisdiction of the High Court challenged the concurrent findings of fact on the relevant issues and a learned Single Judge in the High Court having diluted on the factual controversy raised on behalf of the petitioner, dismissed the revision petition vide judgment impugned.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Court of first instance as well as the Appellate Court and the High Court through misreading of evidence, decided the issues relating to limitation and possession of the suit-land. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner was in continuous possession and despite there being no evidence on record to the contrary, the Courts below on the basis of an admission allegedly made by the petitioner before the Collector that at the relevant time, he was not in possession of the land, non-suited the petitioner and further the question of limitation was decided through misreading of evidence.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his assistance, we find that there is no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel. The learned Judge in the High Court having discussed the evidence in detail, affirmed the findings of fact arrived at by the two Courts on the question of limitation and claim of the petitioner of possession of the suit-land.
5. The learned counsel when confronted with the admission made by the petitioner before the Collector that he was not in possession of the suit-land, he submitted that in the intervening period the petitioner obtained the possession of ,the property but he has not been able to satisfy us from the record that before filing the suit, the petitioner was in possession of the land and what was the nature of his possession. The Court of first instance and the Appellate Court concurrently decided the above issues against the petitioner and this finding of fact was further affirmed by the High Court which would not call for any interference.
6. This petition being devoid of any force, is dismissed and leave is refused.