2010 PLP 2812 (YLR)

HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.

Through the instant civil revision under section 115, C.P.C., petitioner Muhammad Ameer son of Qasim, seeks setting aside of the judgments and decrees dated 25-2-2006 and 11-1-2010. Through the former judgment and decree learned Civil Judge, Kabirwala, dismissed the suit of the petitioner for specific performance of an oral sale agreement. By the latter judgment and decree the learned Additional District Judge, Kabirwala, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against the judgment and decree dated 25-2-2006, hence the instant revision petition.

2. Facts in brief leading to the filing of the instant revision petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement executed by respondent No. 1 Jan Muhammad in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff regarding the property measuring 7-Marlas of land in Khata No.28/23, situated at Mauza Kotwala, Tehsil Kabirwala as per record of rights for the year 1992-93 and also prayed for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. It is alleged in the suit that prior to the alleged agreement to sell petitioner-plaintiff had purchased the land measuring 01-kanal, 14 Marlas from respondent No.1 and raised construction over it; again nine years prior respondent No.1 also entered into the alleged agreement to sell regarding the adjacent land measuring 7-Marlas and received consideration amount Rs.16000 with the promise to execute mutation in the favour of the petitioner in the near future; on demand of the petitioner to transfer the suit land in his name the matter was deferred for one reason or the other and finally he refused to transfer the suit property in petitioner's name, rather he fraudulently transferred the same property in the name of respondent No.2 Muhammad Ajmal vide Mutation No.464 dated 31-10-1997.

3. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing written statement, wherein certain preliminary and factual objections were raised praying for dismissal of the suit. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the learned trial court:- (1) Whether the plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell the suit property for Rs.16000/- and given the possession thereon? OPP (2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD (3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (4) Whether the present suit has been filed to harass the defendants? OPD (5) Relief. Both the parties produced their respective oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their claims. Muhammad Ameer himself appeared as P.W.1. He also produced one Allah Ditta as P.W.2. The plaintiff also produced copy of Mutation No. 464 dated 31-10-1997 as Exh.P-1 and copy of record of rights for the year 1992-93 as Exh.P.2. In rebuttal, respondent-defendant No.1 Jan Muhammad appeared as D.W. 1 and defendant-respondent No.2 Muhammad Ajmal as D. W.2.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgments/ decrees of both the Courts below as well as the record available on the file. Issue No.1 was decided by the learned Civil Judge against the petitioner-plaintiff and in favour of the respondents-defendants by observing that:- "Perusal of the statement in-chief of the plaintiff clearly shows that no specific date of execution of agreement is mentioned and no specific place of execution of the alleged agreement is mentioned. Moreover it is not mentioned when and where consideration amount paid to the defendants. Corroborative witness Allah Ditta also did not specify the specific place of execution of the alleged agreement neither it has been explained that when and where the consideration amount was paid Jan Muhammad defendant No.1 and Muhammad Ajmal DWs denied the execution of the agreement and reception of the alleged sale consideration." Issue No.2 regarding limitation was decided against the plaintiff-petitioner and it was rightly held that the suit of the plaintiff was hopelessly time-barred, as it should have been filed within three years from the year 1989 when the oral agreement was allegedly executed between the parties and the suit was filed on 5-10-1998. Issue No.3 as to maintainability of the suit was decided holding that the suit was not maintainable in its present form as in the plaint no declaration had been sought regarding mutation No.464 dated 31-10-1997 through which suit property had been transferred in favour of respondents No.2. Issue No.4 has rightly been decided in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff holding that the suit was, not filed to harass the respondents-defendants, as no civil or criminal litigation was pending between the parties. Resultantly, the suit of the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the learned trial Court. The appeal filed against the said judgment and decree of the learned trial Court has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kabirwala, giving cogent reasons.

5. There are concurrent findings of the two courts below with regard to facts and law. Unless there is jurisdictional defect in the orders passed by the two courts below, the High Court cannot interfere in the said concurrent findings in exercise of power under section 115, C.P.C. There is no jurisdictional defect in the orders of both the courts below. The findings of both the courts are based on cogent reasons. There is also no illegality or irregularity in the said impugned orders.

6. For the reasons discussed above, I find no merit in the civil revision, which is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-364/L Petition dismissed.