IRSHAD AHMAD Versus SABIRAN BIBI

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH J.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sough: by the defendant side in a suit for possession, which was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs' side. The petitioners' appeal and civil revision having been dismissed, they have now sought leave to appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the arguments raised before the High Court with regard to their plea of adverse possession. There is no justification for re‑opening this question which was adequately dealt with and stands concluded by the findings of the High Court which are unexceptionable. The petitioners had not even cared to seek an issue on the question of adverse possession raised before the High Court.

3. Question of limitation, which, as correctly observed by the High Court, was linked with the question of adverse possession in the circumstances of this case. has also been properly dealt with by the High Court. Learned counsel also b raised contention with regard to non‑reading and misreading of evidence, which, after hearing him. we have found to be of no substance.

4. The last contention of the learned counsel relates to the measurements of the property in dispute. It was not urged before the High Court during the IC hearing of the revision petition. There is no justification for entertaining it now at R this stage.

5. There is no force in this petition. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, refused.

6. M.A.K./I‑80/S Leave refused.