' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- Muhammad Afzal Khan petitioner filed a suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge at Bhakkar claiming therein that Hussain Bakhsh respondent had, through an agreement dated 1-1-1983 agreed to sell the suit property to him for a consideration of Rs,25,000; that the plaintiff-petitioner had paid Rs,24,000 to the said Hussain Bakhsh as earnest money who delivered possession of the land in-question to him; that the balance of the sale price i,e, Rs,1,000 was to be paid by the petitioner-plaintiff to the respondent-defendant at the time of registration of the sale-deed and that Hussain Bakhsh respondent-defendant had resiled from the said agreement. Muhammad Afzal Khan consequently prayed that a decree be passed regarding specific performance of the said agreement.
2. Hussain Bakhsh respondent also filed a suit in the same learned Court praying for a declaration that the above-mentioned sale agreement was a forged and a fictitious document without any consideration and was thus, void. Both these suits were consolidated and through a judgment dated 22-5-1993, the said learned trial Judge decreed the suit of Muhammad Afzal Khan petitioner and dismissed the one filed by Hussain Bakhsh respondent.
3. On the appeals filed by the said Hussain Bakhsh, the above-mentioned judgments and decrees of the learned trial Judge were reversed as a result whereof the suit filed by Afzal Khan was dismissed while the one filed by Hussain Bakhsh was decreed.
4. Afzal Khan then approached the Multan Bench of Lahore High Court through two separate revision petitions bearing Nos.87 and 88 of 1996 impugning the above-mentioned appellate judgments and decrees passed against him. Through a consolidated judgment dated 14-3-2002, both the said revision petitions were dismissed which led the said Afzal Khan to this Court with this Civil Petition No,1695-L of 2002.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also perused the available record.
6. The reasons which had weighed with the Honourable High Court in affirming the findings and conclusions of the learned Appellate Court were that the petition-writer (P.W.1) and the stamp- vendor (P.W.2) had admitted that Hussain Bakhsh respondent was not personally known to them.
The learned High Court also found that one of the marginal witnesses, namely, Muhammad Amir (P.W.3) admitted that he was a chance witness and similar was the position of the other marginal witness i,e, P.W.5 Ghulam Raza (R.W.4) was neither a marginal witness nor had any money passed in his presence. It was admitted by Muhammad Afzal Khan petitioner himself appearing as P.W.6 that criminal cases were pending between him and Hussain Bakhsh and civil litigation had also remained pending between them. Referring to the report of the Handwriting Expert (Exh.D.2), the learned Single Judge observed that the three thumb-impressions on the alleged agreement (Exh.P.1) were compared with the admitted thumb-impressions of Hussain Bakhsh A respondent; that as per the said report, one of the said thumb-impressions was not that of Hussain Bakhsh respondent while the other two had been tampered with and thus, no opinion could be rendered about the same. Hussain Bakhsh respondent was admittedly about eighty-five years of age at the time of alleged execution of the agreement (Exh.P.1) and was illiterate. On account of the litigation between the parties, it had been concluded that no relationship of mutual trust existed between the parties and in this background, it was not believable that Afzal Khan would pay almost the entire sale price without the suit property having been transferred to him.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any infirmity, legal or factual, in the concurrent findings of the two learned Courts i,e, the learned Appellate Court and the Honourable High Court. Having examined all aspects of the matter, we also find no exception could be taken to the impugned conclusion.
8. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. M.H./M-121/S .