1988 PLP 1995 (CLC)

Muhammad Awais Shahid for Petitioner. Ghulam Nabi Bhatti and Khalil Ramday, A.‑G. Punjab for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th December, 1987. The petitioner, Mirza Niaz Baig has moved this Constitutional Petition praying therein that the order passed by respondents Nos.8 and 9 dated 15‑6‑1986 and 25‑4‑1987, respectively, may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner /plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the house in dispute through specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 29‑9‑1975. The case of the plaintiff was that he struck 'a bargain to purchase the suit house from the owner and in lieu thereof an agreement to. sell dated 29‑9‑1975 was executed by the parties. The plaintiff‑petitioner paid a sum of Rs.5,000 as earnest money to the owner. However, despite the fact that an agreement to sell had ' been entered into by both the parties, the owner sold the property in question to respondent. No.7 and thereafter the sale‑deed was duly registered. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 15‑6‑1986 proceeded to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff‑petitioner on the ground that several opportunities were given to him to produce his evidence and he failed to do so. Consequently the evidence of the plaintiff‑petitioner was closed. The petitioner feeling aggrieved. of the judgment and decree dated 15‑6‑1986 passed by the learned trial Court went in revision before the learned District Judge, Kasur, which was heard and dismissed by him vide judgment dated 25‑4‑1987. The learned appellate Court took .into consideration all the points raised by both the parties and came to the conclusion that the revision has been filed against the appealable decree which in law, on the face of it, is not competent. Consequently the revision was dismissed on that ground.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was lying ill and in support of his contention he sent various medical certificates which were not considered by the learned Courts below. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause for his non‑appearance before the learned trial Court. Learned counsel stated that several opportunities were afforded to the petitioner to produce his evidence but despite that he failed to produce his evidence. Learned counsel urged that the sole object of the petitioner .was to prolong the litigation to the entire detriment of the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has no case whatsoever on merits inasmuch as the property in question has been sold for valuable consideration to respondent No.7. Learned counsel stated that the agreement to sell produced and relied upon by the petitioner is fake document on the face of it.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties rind have perused the record very carefully. It is established on record that several dates were fixed by the learned trial Court in the case so as to enable the petitioner‑plaintiff to produce his evidence. However the petitioner did not produce his evidence. Last opportunity in the case was allowed to the petitioner for 15‑6‑1986. On this date also a medical certificate was produced to show that the petitioner is unable to attend the Court on account of his ailment. The nature of the disease with which the petitioner was suffering is stated to be Rheumatoid Arthritis. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince me as to why he did not produce his evidence despite the fact that several opportunities were afforded to him to do so. His only contention was that he was not feeling well and that he was suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis. I am of the view that Rheumatoid Arthritis is not such a disease which will make the petitioner incapacitated to come and pursue his case. In any way, learned counsel for the petitioner could lead the evidence in Court. Even this was not done. I am of the view that the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court have passed the judgments on solid reasons. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that: the property has been sold for valuable consideration in favour of) respondent No.7. Be that as it may, I am not concerned with the' final disposal of the property in question by the owner in favour of respondent No.7. The fact remains that several opportunities were) given to the petitioner but he failed to avail of the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal] infirmity much less the jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the competent learned lower Courts. Resultantly this petition being devoid of force is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M . Y . H . /N‑126/ L Petition dismissed.