' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 6- 6-2003 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore vide which petitioner's Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 19-1-2000 passed by learned First Appellate Court was dismissed and the judgment and decree of learned trial Court dated 7-3-1996 was affirmed.
2. Facts in brief are that respondent filed a suit for specific performance claiming that the petitioner through an agreement, dated 22-11-1990 had agreed to sell the property, the subject-matter of this petition (Quarter No,P.859 situated in D-Type Colony, Faisalabad) for a total consideration of Rs,1,66,000 out of which Rs,35,000 was received by the petitioner as advance and it was agreed between the parties that the sale was to be completed and remaining payment to be made and possession delivered by 25-2-1991. Since the afore-referred agreement was not honoured, therefore, the suit was filed. In the written statement filed by petitioner/defendant the averments made in the plaint were controverted. The agreement was denied.
3. The learned trial Court decreed the suit. The first appeal and Regular Second Appeal were dismissed. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was not signatory to the agreement; that learned trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record and there has been miscarriage of justice.
5. Having gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record we are not inclined to grant leave firstly because it has been concurrently held by the Courts below that the petitioner did enter into an agreement with the respondent/plaintiff; that he received the first installment of the sale price; that he was to complete this sale and deliver possession by 25-2-1991 which he did not; secondly to prove the agreement the respondent produced two marginal witnesses to prove the agreement to sell and of the receipt and no tenable evidence was produced by the petitioner to rebut the evidence led by the respondent/plaintiff; thirdly we do not find any misreading or non- reading of evidence or any infirmity in the concurrent judgments; fourthly no substantial question of law has been raised either.
6. Resultantly this petition having no merit is dismissed and leave to appeal declined.