1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is soughtagainst the order, dated 14-10-1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No, 885 of 1999 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' The facts briefly narrated are that the petitioner filed a declaratory suit with permanent injunction against the respondent praying that four different sale deeds, the detail of which is given in the plaint, were in fact Benami transactions. The respondent/defendant, according to him, was his tenant. Alongwith the suit an application for temporary injunction was filed and the learned Civil Judge, Sialkot, accepted the said application and directed the respondent/defendant not to alienate the disputed,property. An appeal was filed against this interim order and the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, through his judgment, dated 6-5-1999 accepted the same and set aside the interim order of the learned Civil Judge, Sialkot. The petitioner preferred a Civil Revision No, 886 of 1999 before the Lahore High Court, which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge through the judgment, dated 14-10-1999, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents appended with the petition. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has advanced cogent reasons in declining the prayer of the petitioner. It would be appropriate to reproduce the determination of the learned Single Judge which is in the following terms:---- "6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The registered sale deeds prima faice, establish title of the respondent to the land in dispute. Unless it was displaced, it could not be said .That the petitioner had a prima facie case. The petitioner had filed the suit on 30-9-1997 after more than 26 years of the first registered transaction and more than 24 years after the last registered transaction. The inaction on the part of the petitioner was also taken to be a circumstance going against the petitioner. I am in agreement with the observation of the learned First Appellate Court that mere possession did not entitle in the petitioner to the interim injunction. I .See no ground to interfere. This petition is, accordingly dismissed."
4. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed and leave declined.