' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---This civil revision assails judgment and decree dated 28-6- 1994 and 30-10-1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Pakpattan Sharif, whereby suit filed by the respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs.15,000 was decreed and appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, respectively.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.15,000 against the petitioner asserting that parties were closely related to each other, out of which petitioner agreed to sell his 5 Marlas land for an amount of Rs.25,000 in favour of the respondent and received Rs.15,000 as earnest money on the basis of an oral agreement to sell whereby he promised to execute the registered sale-deed, latter. It was also pleaded that during the currency of agreement to sell, respondent got a criminal case registered against the petitioner and out of this annoyance petitioner refused to execute the sale-deed and also did not return the earnest money of Rs.15,000 received by him at the time of above referred oral agreement.
3. Petitioner being defendant in the suit contested in denying the transaction of sale between the parties and also denied receipt of earnest money. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence, whereafter the learned trial Judge, who was seized of the matter, vide his judgment and decree dated 28-6-1994 decreed the suit of the respondent for an amount of Rs.15,000.
4. Petitioner aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court dated 28-6-1994 filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, but remained unsuccessful as the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30-10-1995. Petitioner thereafter filed instant revision petition, which was admitted to regular hearing at Multan Bench of this Court, but after inclusion of District Pakpattan Sharif in Lahore Bench, this case has now been placed here for final determination.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent in order to prove oral agreement to sell and payment of earnest money examined three witnesses but their statements are self- contradictory, negating the stand of the respondent taken in his plaint. He further submitted that respondent did not mention any date, time and place of agreement to sell in his plaint nor the same was proved at the trial which negatively reflected on his claim. He further elaborated his arguments by saying that both the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below suffer from defect of misreading and non-reading of the evidence on record, thus the same are not maintainable at law.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent refuted the arguments of the petitioner, supported the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below and urged that petitioner did not suggest any question to the witnesses of the respondent regarding nonpayment of earnest money, which shows that he admitted receipt of Rs.15,000. He contended that averments in the plaint show that the agreement to sell was reached between the parties prior to initiation of the criminal proceedings, thus on the basis of it, the respondent could not have been non-suited and the decrees in his favour are just and fair. According to his submissions, minor contradictions in the statement of P.Ws. Are bound to occur by lapse of time and on the basis thereof, their statements cannot be discarded. He further submitted that there are concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner, which cannot be disturbed or substituted in revisional jurisdiction, thus the revision petition deserves dismissal.
7. I have anxiously considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undeniably, no date, time and place of the agreement between the parties is either mentioned in the plaint or proved through evidence of any of the P.Ws. P.W.1 is Roshan Din son of Noor Muhammad, who while appearing in the witness box stated that agreement to sell was settled in the summer season at 12-00 noon or 1-00 p.m. And at that time there was no one else present except the plaintiff and the defendant . P.W.2 Ramzan son of Siddique materially contradicted the statement of P.W.1 when he deposed that the bargain was struck at the house of the petitioner in presence of 3/4 persons and he again said that in presence of two persons, whose names he did not know. According to this witness, these negotiations took place between Zohar (Peshi) and Asr (Deegar) times. P.W.3 Muhammad Sharif respondent brought yet another version by saying that bargain was struck at about 10/11 a.m. In presence of Bashir, Roshan Din and Ramzan. P.W.1 did not name these persons who simply said that bargain was struck between the parties only and none-else was present, whereas P.W.2 could not name the persons present at the time of alleged agreement. Bashir, who was claimed to be present by P.W.3 has not been named by any of the two witnesses of the respondent and was also not summoned to make the statement in his support. P.W.3 admitted in his cross-examination that parties were involved in criminal litigation. These contradictions are not minor rather go to the roots of the case to negate the stand taken by the respondent regarding which as observed above, even date or day is not known to him. There is no receipt of payment of Rs.15,000 which was not a small amount in the days when it was alleged to have been paid to the petitioner. Both the Courts below did not note the contradictions in the statements of P.Ws. Thus their judgments run counter to the evidence on the file and hence are not sustainable at law.
8. For the reasons noted above, both the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below being contrary to evidence on the file, suffer from the illegalities/ irregularities as envisaged by section 115, C.P.C. And deserve reversal. This petition is accordingly accepted and both the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below dated 28-6-1994 and 30-10-1995 are set aside and suit filed by the respondent in ordered to be dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.