' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---The petitioners seek the grant of leave from judgment dated 18- 3-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Regular Second Appeal No,91 of 1998.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that late Meer Haider father of the petitioners instituted a suit against respondent No,1 for specific performance of agreement dated 6-6-1982 for the sale of Shop No,9/6 situated in Bundi Bazar, Sialkot, hereinafter referred to as the property in dispute. It was further averred in the plaint that respondent No,1 had subsequently sold the property in dispute to late Muhammad Sharif predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.2 to 11. The civil suit of the petitioners was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Sialkot by judgment and decree dated 21-1-1996 which was affirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot by judgment and decree, dated 23-5-1998. Their Regular Second Appeal No,91 of 1998 was also dismissed by the Lahore High Court by the impugned judgment and decree dated 18-3-1999. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned judgment suffered from misreading and non-reading of material evidence on record. The Additional District Judge had failed to deal with all the issues framed and was required to address the questions raised ding the course of arguments. The ex parte decree earlier passed in fur of the petitioners and against the respondents was not liable toset aside. The respondent No,1 had no locus standi to contest the e1- 1m of the petitioners for specific performance of the agreement dated6-6-1982. The learned counsel lastly argued that the execution of agreement to sell dated 6-6-1982 had been duly proved by evidence. Therefore, the onus probandi had shifted io the other side to prove that the subsequent sale of the property in dispute was without notice of the prior agreement to 'sell in favour of the petitioners.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. We find that the statement of P.Ws.1 and 3 were belied by the statement of P.W.2 in material particulars. P.W. I stated that an amount of Rs,90,000 had been paid to respondent No,1 whereas P.W.2 mentioned the payment of Rs,50,000 at the time of execution of the alleged agreement to sell (Exh.P.1).
Muhammad Hussain, scribe of Exh.P.1 categorically stated that respondent No,1 did not execute the alleged agreement to sell (Exh.P.1) and that the stamp paper was also not purchased by the' said respondent. D.W.2 Record Keeper, office of Excise and Taxation, Sialkot deposed that according to the record maintained by NazirHussain Shah for the year 1982 no stamp paper was purchased by AkramAli respondent No,1 on 6-6-1982 or thereafter. The defence evidence led by the respondents Nos.2 to 11 satisfactorily proved the lack of any notice or knowledge of the so-called agreement (Exh.P.1). The factum of execution of the agreement to sell (Exh.P.1) was disbelieved by the Courts.
The concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the Courts do not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of evidence. The impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this Court.
This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.