1994 PLP 1982 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Questions raised pertained to facts‑‑‑Evidence had been appraised by three Courts below‑‑‑No allegation that judgments of Courts below were based on no evidence‑‑‑Supreme Court, in view of concurrent findings by all the Courts, was not inclined to reappraise the evidence afresh‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was devoid of merit‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, Advocate for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th October, 1992. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: ‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 31‑5‑1992.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for spec performance of an agreement to sell dated 22‑4‑1990 for the transfer of a plot in question. According to the petitioner, the price was fixed at Rs.1,70,000 out of which Rs.60,000 were paid as advance. The suit was contested by the respondents and seven issues were framed by the trial Court. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit on 15‑1‑1992. His appeal and revision before the Additional District Judge and the High Court were dismissed on 18‑5‑1992 and 31‑5‑1992 respectively. The reasons which weighed with the learned High Court are as hereunder:‑‑ "I have considered the contentions raised and have gone through the evidence appended with this petition with the assistance of the learned counsel. The petitioner in order to establish the execution of the agreement produced four witnesses including himself as P.W.

4. Abdul Majid P.W. 1 stated that the stamp paper was purchased by the defendant/respondent Muhammad Nazir from him and he recorded the same at Serial No. 1254 dated 22‑4‑1992. He is also scribe of the agreement. Reading of his evidence does not inspire any confidence. He was not licence‑holder as "Waseeqa Navees". He neither kept any register nor document respecting the same. His evidence is also in contradiction to Arshad Mehmood P.W.2 who had stated that the stamp paper was purchased by the petitioner. Similarly, the testimony of Arshad Mehmood P.W.2, who is inimical to the respondent, does not advance the case of the petitioner any further. It is worth mentioning here that P.W.1 had stated categorically that the parties signed the agreement in his presence while Khizar Hayat Niazi P.W.3, Notary Public, stated that when `Iqrarnama' Exh. P.1 was brought before him the column of signatures was not filled. It is also strange that P.W.1, the alleged scribe, has written down the agreement without seeing the documents concerning the plot. No independent witness has come forward to establish the execution of the alleged agreement. The two Courts below have determined this question of fact after properly appreciating the evidence brought on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity worth interference in the impugned judgments."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the same contentions which have been appropriately dealt with by all the Courts. He submitted that the witnesses produced by the petitioner have established that an agreement was executed between the parties. The respondent No. 1 had received Rs.60,000 as advance but thereafter sold the property to, another person for an amount of Rs.3,00,000.

4. The learned counsel has raised the question of fact. The evidence has been appraised by the three Courts. There is no allegation that the judgments are based on no evidence. In view of concurrent findings by all the Courts this Court is not inclined to reappraise the evidence afresh. There is no force in this petition. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. A.A./M‑1981/S Leave refused.