2007 PLP 1572 (CLC)

SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.

Civil Revision No.586 of 2006 filed by the petitioner arises from the judgment and decree dated 15-2-2006 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Bhalwal dismissed petitioner's appeal preferred to assail the judgment and decree of Civil Judge, Bhalwal, dated 30-4-2005.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case are that petitioners filed a suit for the specific performance against respondent claiming that a bargain had been entered into for the sale of land for Rs.1,20,000 per acre and a sum of Rs.70,000 was paid as earnest money. In terms of the alleged agreement to sell dated 24-7-2000 it was allegedly agreed that the balance consideration shall be paid at the time of the consummation of transaction.

3. Respondent entered appearance, contested the suit by denying the execution of agreement to sell and all alleged transaction sued upon. Learned trial Court recorded evidence on the issues framed and finally dismissed the suit in terms of judgment, dated 30-4-2005. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal which too was dismissed by the First Appellate Court through the judgment and decree impugned.

4. Counsel for the parties have been heard and the record appended perused. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that onus was not rightly placed on the issues framed. Adds that petitioners .had proved their case of the execution of agreement to sell.

5. Whereas, learned counsel for .the respondent controverts the contentions as being raised on behalf of petitioners.

6. Agreement to sell purportedly pertains to land measuring about 7-8 Acres. The quantum of land subject-matter of the alleged agreement, was indefinite and deficient in material particulars. One of the two alleged marginal witnesses did not appear as a witness and no explanation whatsoever has been furnished by the plaintiffs/petitioners in this regard. As a matter of fact, even petitioner No.1 also did not enter the witness-box to support his claim. Notary public who allegedly attested the document also did not appear. The scribe conceded that he did not know the parties. There were material contradictions in the statement of the P.Ws. regarding time and place of transaction and the payment of the alleged consideration. Details of such contradictions are mentioned in the judgments of the Courts below. In the circumstances, the trial Court returned the finding that petitioners were unable to prove the execution of the agreement which finding was affirmed in appeal. There is concurrent and consistent finding of fact by the two Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out any misreading and non-reading of evidence. In these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the judgments and decrees impugned which do not suffer from misapplication of law or material defect in the exercise of jurisdiction. Consequently, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./M-411/L Revision dismissed.