KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- Taj Din respondent brought a suit in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mainwali praying for a declaration that he was the owner of Khata No. 80 of Chak No. 3- 4/M.L., Tehsil and District Mianwali; that Mst. Mussarrat Bibi petitioner-defendant had nothing to do with the same; that the allotment order dated 16.6.1958 passed by the Settlement Officer, Bhakkar in favour of the said petitioner-respondent No. 3 was illegal and fraudulent and further that the latter order dated 4.11.1989 passed by the, Collector, Mianwali was also illegal and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff. The said suit was decreed by the learned Trial Judge through a judgment dated 29.3.1995. Mst. Mussarrat Bibi impugned the said judgment and decree before the learned District Judge by way of appeal which appeal was dismissed through a judgment dated 18.12.2000 of a learned Additional District Judge at Mainwali. This led the said Mst.
Mussarrat Bibi to the Lahore High Court with a petition under Section 115 of the CPC bearing C.R. No. 1440 of 2001 which also met the same fate through a judgment dated 11.12.2002 of the Lahore High Court.
2. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at some length' and we have also perused the available record in the light of the submissions made by him,
4. There is a consistent finding of the three learned Courts, regarding the factual controversy. All the said learned Courts including the Honourable Revisional Court had duly considered the entire relevant evidence available on record including Exhs.P2, P3, P4, P5, P10, P12, D2, D3 and D4. The said learned Courts had also examined the effect of the oral evidence led at the trial including the statements of PW1, PW2, DW1, DW2, DW3 and CW1. The learned High Court had also found that no issue was framed with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with the matter in question nor were any steps taken by the defendant to claim any such issue as a result whereof no objection to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court could be entertained at the revisional stage.
5. Having thus examined all aspects of the matter, we find that the concurrent findings and the consistent view of the three learned Courts were not open to any exception as it could not be shown that the said findings and conclusions were the result of any illegality or any mis-reading or non-reading of Ordinance by the three competent Courts.
6. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused. .