' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.---Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance against respondent No.2 on the basis of a receipt dated 10-9-1994 Exh.P.1 claiming that the suit property was sold to him by respondent No.2 in consideration of Rs.24,500 out of which a sum of Rs.10,000 was received as earnest money. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Khawaja filed an application before the trial Court for being impleaded as a party, which was allowed. He filed his written statement by contending that the property in dispute was sold to him by respondent No.2 through Mutation No.3519 entered on 12-9-1994 in consideration of Rs.12,000 and the possession was also handed over to him. Respondent No.2 however, filed a conceding written statement in favour of Respondent No.
1. After recording evidence of the parties the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 5- 1-1998 dismissed the suit. The same was assailed by respondent No.1 through an appeal, which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 27-9-2001 and his suit was decreed. This appellate decree is being assailed through the instant civil revision.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to Exh.D/1 that the petitioner has a valid document of title in her favour while as against this respondent No.1 having merely an ordinary receipt Exh.P.1 without formal proof. He has also pointed out some misreading by the learned Appellate Court inasmuch as according to him P.W.1 Sohrab stated that at the time of execution of Exh.P.1 Dilnawaz vendor was in Otra Kalan while P.W.2 and 3 stated that receipt Exh.P.1 was executed in Saraey Mohajar, which is at a distance of 100 miles from the earlier mentioned place. It is further submitted that purchase by the petitioner is prior in time than Respondent No.1, inasmuch as Gull Muhammad one of the petitioners while appearing as his own witness categorically stated in his cross-examination that the property in disputed was purchased by his father on 1-9-1994 and this fact has not been challenged by the respondent. It is also claimed that ever since the petitioners are in possession of the property in dispute.
3 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that the part of the statement of P.W.1 referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners is to be read in continuation of the earlier two sentences of the same witness if so read it gives a different meaning. It is further submitted that the petitioners never set up a case that he had purchased the property in dispute before 12-9- 1994 when for the first time the disputed mutation was entered.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The relevant portions of the statements of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are reproduced as follows:- {{URDU TEXT}}'P.W.3 If the statement of P.W.1 quoted above is considered in continuation of sentences one after the other it becomes clear that the witness was describing that Dilnawaz was earlier resident of Otra Khurd thereafter he shifted to Sindh while in the days when the receipt was executed, he was a resident of Otra Kalan. It does not mean that at the time when the receipt was actually executed, he was physically at a place other than the one, which was claimed by the other witness. Some other minor discrepancies have also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, which does not materially affect the result of the case. Although D.W.3 while in cross-examination stated that his father purchased the prope-ty in dispute on 1-9-1994 but this fact was never pleaded nor proved by the petitioners; therefore, this one sentence can only be said to be an effort to make improvement in the case. Exh.D.1 is the mutation in favour of the petitioners, which was entered through Rapat No.21 dated 12-9-1994 and was ultimately sanctioned on 7-5-1997; therefore, the findings of the learned Appellate Court that transaction had already become complete and final by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1; therefore, there was no occasion or no title left with respondent No.1 to transfer it to the petitioners based on pure question of fact, which do not call for interference by this Court.
6. For what has been stated above, I find no merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed.