2010 PLP 537 (SCMR)

RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, J.

This civil petition for leave to appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 24-5-2004 whereby, Civil Revision No.2332 of 2001 file) by the petitioners has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Through the abovementioned civil revision, the petitioners had challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees of learned Additional District Judge, Kasur, dated 17-5-2001 and the judgment and decree dated 8-7-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kasur decreeing the suit of respondent No.1.

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that respondent No.1 instituted suit for specific performance of oral sale agreement against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and respondent No.2 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kasur with respect to land described in subject title of the suit situated in Mauza Dhala Kalan, Tehsil and District Kasur wherein it was alleged that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners agreed to sell the suit-land at the rate of Rs.700 per acre to whom an earnest amount of Rs.10,000 was paid later on the vendor refused to complete the sale agreement by receiving the balance amount of the sale transaction. Contesting written statement was filed by the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners/defendants in which the claim of respondent No.1/plaintiff was repudiated as a whole and it was contended that no oral sale agreement was effected between the parties nor he received the earnest money towards the alleged transaction. Respondent No.2 filed conceding written statement. Out of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the learned trial Court. From scrutiny of the documents, it appears that the evidence of respondent No.1/plantiff was closed under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. Appeal preferred against this order by respondent No.1 was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur and solitary opportunity was directed to be allowed to the plaintiffs to produce evidence. In the post-remand proceedings after close of parties' evidence, the suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24-9-1992. The appeal preferred by respondent No.1 against the decree of the trial Court was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur vide judgment and decree, dated 5-7-1994 and the case was remanded to trial Court for recasting the issues and thereafter, the case to be decided afresh in accordance with law. In post-remand proceedings the plaintiff produced one Muhammad Shafi and tendered in evidence, copy of the Khasra Girdawari (Exh.P.7). The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 8-7-1998 decreed the suit of respondent No.1 in his favour. Appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 17-5-2001. Both these judgments and decrees were assailed in civil revision before the learned High Court which was dismissed vide impugned judgment herein.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The impugned judgment and the judgments passed by the learned courts below have been perused carefully with his assistance including the evidence, copies available on the paper book. The learned counsel contended that the terms of the alleged oral sale agreement including its existence could not be proved by the plaintiff and the evidence on record was misconstrued and misappraised by the learned courts below, due notice whereof was not taken of in the impugned judgment. The former ground was not urged during the course of arguments before the learned Judge in the High Court nor the learned counsel has been able to substantiate his contention in the light of the evidence available on record, in absence whereof, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned courts below and maintained vide impugned judgment could not be interfered with. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity or impropriety factual or legal.

4. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, this civil petition having no substance is dismissed. Leave refused. M.H./M-108/SC Petition dismissed.