' The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit on 24-7-2002 for specific performance of contract dated 29-9- 1986 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/ respondent from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit-land. It was averred that the land measuring 99 Kanals and 11 Marlas was allotted to defendant No.1 under Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 in Chak No.6/R.B., Tehsil Safdarabad, District, Sheikhupura. The defendant No.1 executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner on 29-9-1986 for the sale of aforementioned land for a consideration of Rs.2,00,000 (two lac) and Rs.1,25,000 was paid as earnest money and from the remaining amount of Rs.75,000 the Government dues were to be paid by petitioner, Ishtiaq Ahmad. The plaintiff deposited more than Rs.75,000 as Government dues for the execution of the sale-deed in favour of defendant No 1 . He instead of keeping the promise to transfer the land in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner, transferred the same to defendant No.2 vide exchange deed dated 8-7-2002.
The plaintiff had earlier filed a suit regarding the same property in the Court of Civil Judge, Sheikhupura in which the date of hearing was stated to be 26-7-2002. After receiving the knowledge of the exchange deed the present suit was filed. Along with the suit an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. For grant of temporary injunction was also filed. The said application for interim relief was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 4-11-2002. The appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura also met the same fate on 4-3-2003.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in possession of the land under the said agreement to sell dated 29-9-1986 and that he has been appearing before the Revenue Authorities for the execution and registration of the sale-deed on behalf of defendant No. 1 . Petitioner paid Rs.75,000 from his own pocket. Learned counsel referred to the copies of the "Khasra Gardawari" alleging the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the Local Commission report was wrongly rejected by the Courts below and that the Court after the rejection of the report of the Local Commission should have appointed another Local Commission moreso when the possession of the land is in dispute.
Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the alleged agreement to sell dated 29-9-1986 is forged and fictitious document. The respondent No.1 himself deposited Rs.4,50,000 and that the petitioner has never been in possession of the land in dispute.
3. I have gone through the impugned orders and perused the record attached with the petition. The report of the Local Commission shows that he visited the spot on 27-7-2002 at 4-30 p.m. In the absence of the respondents and without notice to them. The record shows that subsequently a notice to the defendants/respondents was issued for 6-8-2002. The Courts below rightly rejected the report of Local Commission. In view of the clear documentary evidence there is no kneed to appoint a fresh Local Commission.
The "Khasra Gardawari" from "Kharif" 1998 to "Kharif" 2002 shows the self-cultivation of Amjad Ali (respondent). The entry in the column states as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The learned counsel for the petitioner laid stress on the entries in the last column which read as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} dated 29-9-1986. Even the challan form produced by the learned counsel for the respondent shows that Rs.4,50,000 have been paid to the Government of Punjab as price of the land. This makes the case of the petitioner doubtful as the sale consideration in the agreement to sell is Rs.2,00,000 and the Government dues paid as sale-price for proprietary rights of land amount to Rs.4,50,000. Learned counsel also laid much stress on the fact that the original documents are in possession of the petitioner and the same could not be produced before the lower Courts as they were misplaced. In reply the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has illegally stolen them as he was "Munshi" (clerk) of the respondent.
4. For what has been stated above this petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine.