' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 3-4-2000 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed the Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner and maintained the determination of the learned Additional District Judge, Kot Addu whereby he had set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge passed on 15- 2-1994.
2. We need not give the facts of the case in detail as the same have already been adverted to in the impugned judgment.
3. We have considered the contentions raised by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on- Record and have also perused the documents appended with this petition.
4. Admittedly the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance on 10-2-1981 against respondents Nos.2 and 3 on the basis of an alleged agreement stated to have taken place in May, 1980 claiming property measuring 6 Kanals, 18 Marlas for a consideration of Rs,18,000. The conceding written statement was filed by one Akhtar Ali on 14-2-1981 claiming himself to be the attorney of the respondents-defendants on 14-2-1981 and a decree was passed on 21-2-1981. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No,1 Kashmir Khan had earlier filed a declaratory suit on 28-2-1980 against same respondents claiming himself to be the owner in possession of the disputed land. In this case too, Akhtar Ali claiming himself to be the attorney, submitted conceding written statement. Said suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court through judgment, dated 5-7-1980.
However, the learned First Appellate Court accepted the appeal and decreed the suit through his judgment, dated 24-1-1982 holding that a complete sale had already taken place. The petitioner did not mention this aspect in the suit filed by him on 10-2-1981. The transaction, the subject-matter of this petition respecting which declaratory suit was filed by the respondent was prior in time which factum demonstrated that the transaction of sale agreement in favor of respondent had already taken place prior to the appearance of the petitioner on the scene.
5. In view of what has been noticed above, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. .