' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---The brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that petitioner/defendant executed an agreement to sell with respondent/plaintiff on 16-11-1981 to sell Ihata No,126 measuring 7-1/2 Marlas for consideration of Rs,9,000. Petitioner failed to execute sale- deed in favour of respondent. The respondent being aggrieved filed suit for specific performance against petitioner on 18-12-1988 in the Court of Civil Judge, Chistian. The contents of plaint reveal that the possession of the plot in question was handed over to the respondent. Subsequently petitioner dispossessed him from the plot in question forcibly. Respondent lodged a case against petitioner. The contents of plaint further show that the petitioner/defendant obtained patta malkiat from municipal committee in his own name mala fade. Petitioner filed written statement controverted the allegations leveled in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed eight issues which are mentioned in para. 3 of the judgment of the trial Court. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit vide judgment dated 28-2- 1991. Petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal in the Court of District Judge Bahawalnagar who accepted the appeal vide judgment dated 16-3-1992. Respondent being aggrieved filed C.R.
No,176-D of 1992 in the Lahore High Court which was accepted vide impugned judgment. Hence the present petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that first appellate Court was justified to reverse the judgment of the trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence with cogent reasons whereas the learned High Court had erred in law to set aside the judgment of the first appellate Court by misreading and non-reading of the record in violation of mandatory provisions of the law and principles laid down by the Apex Court. He further urges that respondent had filed suit on 18-2-1988 due to which first appellate Court was justified to hold that provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were applicable and this Court while rendering judgment in Noor Muhammad's case 2002 SCM R 1301 did not consider the preamble and other provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. He further submits that there is authoritative judgment on this point of the apex Court. He further states that first appellate Court was justified to hold that suit of the respondent was time-barred whereas learned High Court had erred in law to reverse the finding of the fact without cogent reasons while exercising power under section 115, C.P.C.
3. We have given of due consideration to the contention of learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that agreement to sell was executed between the parties on 16-11-1981 whereas Qanun-e-Shahadat Order came into force on 26-10-1984 meaning thereby agreement to sell executed prior to coming into force of the said order 1984 (President's Order No,10/1984). By virtue of Article 1(3) of the said Order came into force at once, there it does not apply retrospectively to documents already executed and are past and closed. See Manzoor Ahmad's case 2002 SCM R 1391, Noor Muhammad's case 2002 SCM R 1301, Syed Muhammad Sultan's case 1997 CLC 1580 and Ramzan's case 2001 M LD 957.
4. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner secured the title of the plot in question on 16-11-1987 whereas the respondent had filed a suit on 18-12-1988. The respondent had accrued cause of action on 16-11-1987, therefore, the learned High Court was justified to hold that he had filed suit within time as the law laid down by this Court in Inam Naqshaband's case PLD 1995 SC 314. It is an admitted fact that first appellate Court had decided the case against the respondent in violation of law laid down by the superior Courts in the aforesaid judgments, therefore, first appellate Court had committed material irregularity. The learned High Court was justified to interfere while exercising power under section 115, C.P.C. As the law laid down by this Court in Shaukat Nawaz's case 1988 SCM R 851. It is a settled principle of law that parties are bound by their pleadings. The petitioner's counsel had argued only two grounds before the learned High Court that suit of the respondent was highly time-barred and document i,e, Exh. PI had to be proved in accordance with provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The learned High Court was justified to hold against the petitioner with cogent reasons in accordance with law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgments. Similarly the learned High Court was justified as mentioned above that suit of the respondent was not time-barred. It is yet another principle of law that this Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact duly recorded by the learned High Court after proper appreciation of evidence on record unless it can be shown that the finding is result of misreading or non-reading that to accept it could amount to perpetuating a grave miscarriage of justice. This being the practice and the rule of the Court in civil matters, the burden heavily lies on the petitioner to point out that the findings of fact recorded by the High Court are not sustainable on the record. See (1887) 12 AC 101 Allen v. Qubee Warehouse Co., 1947 PC 19 Bibhabats v. Ramendra Narayan, PLD 1967 SC 249 Federation of Pakistan v. Ali Ihsan. A perusal of the impugned judgment delivered in the High Court reveals that all these arguments were considered at length by the learned Judge, who heard and decided civil revision. We have already listed the facts and circumstances on the basis of which the learned Judge came to the conclusion. The petitioner's counsel had failed to discharge the burden that finding of fact recorded in the present case were not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is settled principle of law that parties are bound by their pleadings as law laid down by this Court in Mst. Murad Begum's case PLD 1974 SC 322. As the petitioner's counsel had pressed aforesaid pleas only before the learned High Court at the time of hearing the petition, therefore, he cannot raise fresh plea before this Court as law laid down by this Court in Ashfaqur Rehman Khan's case PLD 1971 SC 219. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the learned High Court.
5. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.
Leave is refused.