2007 SCMR 1076 (PLP)

CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.

The brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos.1 to 6/defendants Nos.1 to 6 was allottee of land in question measuring 57 Kanals, 6 Marlas under Tarbela Dam Affectees Scheme situated in Chak No.174/10-R, Tehsil Jahanian, District Khanewal. After his death it was transferred to his L.Rs. present respondents Nos.1 to 6 who agreed to sell the land in question to the petitioners vide agreement to sell dated 3-11-1983 for a consideration of Rs.14,

200. The possession of the land in question was also handed over to the petitioners. All Government dues have been paid by the petitioners/plaintiffs but respondents Nos.1 to 6 refused to execute the sale-deed in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs. Petitioners being aggrieved filed suit for specific performance in the Court of Civil Judge, Khanewal on 27-10-1991. Respondents filed written statement, controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed 6 issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree, dated 18-12-2000. Petitioners being aggrieved filed appeal before the Additional District Judge who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 16-6-2005. Thereafter the petitioners being aggrieved filed civil revision in the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench which was also dismissed. Hence, this petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the Courts below had decided the case against the petitioners by misreading and non-reading of the record. He further submits that learned High Court had decided the case against the petitioners as none of the petitioners entered appearance in the witness-box to face the weapon of cross-examination and also failed to produce general power of attorney executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioners at the time of execution of agreement to sell with the petitioners.

3. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. It is admitted fact that the petitioners had produced only one witness P.W. Sher Bahadar to prove the execution of agreement Exh.P.I. as evident from para.9 of the judgment of the Additional District Judge. According to Articles 17 and 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, petitioners had to produce two attesting witnesses of the agreement in question. As mentioned above, petitioners had produced only one witness to prove the agreement to sell, therefore, all the Courts below were justified to non-suit the petitioners as law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements. See Suleman Ali's case 2000 YLR 1983, Maqsood Ahmad's case PLD 2003 SC 31, Qazi Muhammad Saqib Khan's case 2003 MLD

131. The learned High Court had taken a lot of pain to reappraise the evidence on record as evident from paragraphs 5 to 9 of the impugned judgment. The learned High Court has very limited jurisdiction to meddle with the concurrent B findings of the Courts below while exercising power under section 115, C.P.C. There are various pronouncements in this regard of this Court and the Privy Council. See N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyanger's case PLD 1949 PC 26, Muhammad Akhtar's case 2001 SCMR 1700 and Abdul Rahim's case 2000 SCMR

346. It is a settled law that specific performance is an equitable relief and the Courts below have rightly declined to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners with cogent reasons. The judgments of the Courts below are in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in Irshad Hussain's case PLD 1994 SC 326 and this Court does not, normally, interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below in exercise of the' power under Article 185(3) of the Constitution unless there is defect of misreading or non-reading of the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any misreading of evidence and thus we having found no substance in-this petition, dismiss the same and refuse the leave. M.H./R-8/SC Petition dismissed.