1998 PLP 1325 (CLC)

This writ petition is directed against order, dated 2‑6‑1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khanpur, whereby he accepted the revision petition of the plaintiff/respondent No.l for summoning defendant/petitioner No. l for verifying his thumb‑impression on the agreement deed.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that an agreement, dated 12‑1‑1984 was executed between the plaintiff/respondent No.l and defendant/petitioner No.l Rehmatullah for the sale of land measuring 40 Kanals and 6 Marlas for Rs.15,

000. A sum of Rs.14,000 was paid and the remaining amount of Rs.1,000 was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale‑deed or mutation. As the vendor refused to abide by his agreement and petitioners Nos.2 and 3 started claiming to have purchased land from petitioner No. 1, so the necessity to file a suit for specific performance arose.

3. The suit was resisted by petitioner No. l who denied the execution of said agreement whereas defendants/petitioners Nos.2 and 3 asserted that they had purchased the land from petitioner No. 1.

4. During the pendency of the suit, an application was moved by respondent No. l for summoning petitioner No. l for verifying him thumb impression on agreement, dated 12‑1‑1984. It was resisted by petitioner No. l and finally the same was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order, dated 15‑7‑1996. The plaintiff/respondent No. l felt aggrieved of the said order and filed a revision petition, which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Khanpur vide order, dated 2‑6‑1997, hence this writ petition.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners that the lower Court could not accept the revision petition as the order passed by Trial Court, dated 15‑7‑1976 did not suffer from any material irregularity. He next argued that the application for summoning petitioner No. l could be moved at the earliest opportunity and it could not be moved at a stage when the evidence of the respondent No. l had been brought on record. He next argued that since petitioner No. l was yet to be examined, so there was no need of summoning him for verifying him thumb‑impression on the agreement and as such impugned order be declared illegal, ineffective in‑operative upon the rights of petitioners.

6. The bone of contention between the parties is agreement, dated 12‑1‑1984. The stand of the plaintiff/respondent No. l is that he had purchased the land from defendant/petitioner No. 1 and had also paid a sum of R 3.14,000 out of sale consideration of Rs.15,

000. This assertion of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has been denied by the other side. Keeping in view this denial on the part of defendant/petitioner No. 1, an application was moved for verifying his thumb impression on the said agreement. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that it had been moved at a late stage. However, the reasoning of the Trial Court did not find favour with the Revisional Court and the same was pleased to allow the application. Now the main grievance of the petitioners is that as petitioner No. 1 is yet to be examined, so there was no need of summoning him for verifying his thumb‑impression on the agreement. A perusal of record shows that defendant/petitioner No. l is being represented through his attorney and there is every likelihood that defendant/petitioner No. l may not appear in the Court. It A is to forestall such eventuality that Revisional Court has accepted the revision petition and directed defendant/petitioner No. l to appear in Court to verify the contents of agreement. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality.

8. Resultantly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. A. A. /R‑51/L Petition accepted