2002 PLP 942 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.‑‑‑ Brief facts of the case as given in the plaint are that respondent No. l Muhammad Siddique wag owner of 100 Kanals of land, detailed in the plaint. He entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiffs, dated 5‑4‑1987 for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000 out of which, Rs.4,50,000 was paid at the time of execution of the said agreement and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale‑deed. However, after the execution of the said agreement respondent No. l sold the suit‑land through various mutations to other respondents.

2. The respondents contested the suit and raised various objections, upon which, the following issues were framed:‑‑ (1) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to bring the present suit? OPD (2) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their word and conduct from bringing the present suit? OPD (3) Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs under section 35‑A, C.P.C. OPD (4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD (5) Whether the defendant entered into impugned agreement to sell with the plaintiff on 5‑4‑1987. If above issue is proved whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of contract? OPP (5‑A) Whether the defendants Nos.2 to 9 are the bona fide purchaser for the value without notice? OPD 2 to 9 (5‑B) Whether the description of the suit‑land is incorrect if so its effect? OPD (6) Relief. The parties led their respective evidence, whereafter the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree, dated 30‑7‑1989, dismissed the suit of the appellants. Hence this first appeal. 3.Learned counsel for the appellants has very half‑heartedly argued this case but he has made great stress on his application bearing C.M. wherein it was prayed that the thumb‑impressions of respondent No. l Muhammad Siddique be obtained and got compared with his thumb‑impressions on Exh.P.1 which is the disputed agreement to sell. The said Muhammad Siddique is present in Court today. We have obtained his thumb‑impressions in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties which is places! on record as Mark "A" and have ourselves compared the same with the thumb‑impressions of Muhammad Siddique on EXh.P.I, the disputed agreement to sell. There are marked differences visible with the naked eyes between the thumb‑impressions on the agreement to sell and the samples obtained in Court today on Mark "A". We have also examined the samples of thumb‑impressions with the help of magnifying glass. Undoubtedly the thumb‑impressions on Exh.P.1 attributed to Muhammad Siddique is not that of Muhammad Siddique. Therefore, there is no need to get an Expert's opinion on the same as the same is evident and clear to the naked eyes.

4. We have also gone through the evidence led by the parties. Exh.P.1 was allegedly purchased by the appellants from Multan whereas the suit‑land is situated in Mailsi while the disputed agreement was executed at Vehari. Exh.P.l does not contain the signatures/thumb‑marks of the purchaser whereas, according to P.W.5 Inayat/plaintiff, the same was purchased by him while he was accompanied by Siddique respondent. Allegedly this document was written by P.W.1 Abdul Rehman, although his stamp is there on the document but it does not appear that he had also signed the same. The said Abdul Rehman P.W.1 is otherwise not a trustworthy witness inasmuch as he does not have any licence of petition‑writer nor he has any seat in the Vehari Court compound. He was not in possession of the relevant register wherein the disputed agreement was entered. The registers which he had been maintaining were lost. So, he could not advance the case of the appellants. Likewise P.W.2, who is one of the marginal witness of the disputed document, is also not a trustworthy witness inasmuch as he himself was involved in 8‑110 criminal cases. P.W.4 is a close relative of Inayat plaintiff. It is in evidence that respondent No. l has no male issue and Inayat P.W.5/plaintiff is the first cousin of Siddique respondent No. 1, therefore, it appears that since Siddique was not having any male issue, therefore, he had tried to grab the property of respondent No.

1. D.W.2 Muhammad Amin is the Stamp‑Vendor of Multan who has also appeared and has categorically denied about the sale of the stamp paper of EXh.P.I and this fact was not subjected to cross‑examination by the plaintiffs. Respondent No. l has placed on record his original National Identity Card as Exh.D.I. Its number is different from the one which is attributed to him in Exh.P.l. The number of the original Identity Card is 325‑47‑392395 whereas the number given on Exh.P.1 is 325‑41‑392395. The above examination of the evidence and the comparison of the thumb -impressions obtained by us on Mark "A", clearly established that Exh.P.l is a forged document which cannot be relied upon. Consequently this appeal is dismissed with costs. S.A.K./M‑906/L Appeal dismissed.