GHULAM QADIR Versus KALAY KHAN

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner instituted, on 26-11-1980, a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, dated 13-4-1976 (Exh.P.1), allegedly executed, by late Muhammad Ameer alias Said Ameer, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.5 to 9 against consideration of Rs.5,000. The suit-land was subsequently purchased by the respondents Nos.1 to 4 pursuant to judgment and decree, dated 20-10-1981 (Exh.P.2), passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalnagar, in a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 25-4-1981 executed by the General Attorney of Said Ameer for consideration of Rs.80,000. The Civil Judge, Bahawalnagar, 'vide judgment, dated 22-5-1988, dismissed the suit of the petitioner. However, the appeal of the petitioner was allowed, by the District Judge, Bahawalnagar, vide judgment, dated 30-10-1988 whereby the suit was decreed in his favour. Therefore, the respondents filed Civil Revision No.309-D of 1988/BWP which was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur bench, vide impugned judgment dated 19-4-2001. Consequently, the judgment of the trial Court of the dismissal of the suit of the petitioner was restored.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner had duly proved the execution of agreement to sell dated 13-4-1976 by production c f witnesses in support thereof. Therefore, there was no justifiable ground to dismiss the suit of the petitioner, it was further contended that the High Court was not expected to reappraise the evidence of the parties for the purpose of reversing the judgment of the First Appellate Court.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the due execution of the so-called agreement to sell dated 13-4-1976 had not been proved by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The respondents Nos.1 to 4 were the bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration without any notice of the alleged agreement to sell.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also perused the available record. We find that the scribe, Maqbool Hussain, P.W. had clearly stated that no sale consideration was passed in his presence and that he even did not know Said Ameer. The requirements of law had not been complied with in order to prove alleged agreement to sell. The High Court has given cogent reasons for the reversal of the judgment of the Appellate Court which suffered from misreading and non-reading of material evidence on record. We need not re-appreciate the evidence of the parties in order to come to a different conclusion. In our view, the impugned judgment of the High Court is plainly correct to which no exception can be taken.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.

H.B.T./G-15/SC Petition dismissed.