MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---On 11-5-1991, the respondent brought a suit for the specific performance against the petitioner, seeking enforcement of the agreement to sell dated 25-4-1982, with regard to the suit-land measuring 50 Kanals, 8 Marlas, which through the agreement the petitioner had agreed to sell in favour of the respondent, for a total consideration of Rs.1,57,500, out of which Rs.1,000 was paid in cash, whereas for the balance earnest money of Rs.44,000, the cheque of Haji Muhammad Aslam/P.W.3, an agent of the respondent, was issued, which was to be encashed by 5-6-1982. Subsequently, the respondent, as stated above, brought the suit on the allegations that despite having received the aforesaid amount of the earnest money, as the sale has to be accomplished by the petitioner after he has obtained the proprietary rights, which were conferred upon him on 24-6-1990, therefore, the agreement is now rendered enforceable. The petitioner contested the matter, he did not deny the execution of the agreement to sell, rather took up the stance that the respondent had not paid him the amount of Rs.44,000, because the cheque was not encashed. The parties after the framing of the issues were put to trial and the learned Civil Judge, while giving finding held, that the petitioner approached Haji Muhammad Aslam P.W.3, who had issued the cheque that the payment covered by the cheque amounting to Rs.44,000, be paid to him in cash and that the cheque was returned. Haji Muhammad Aslam's statement is also corroborated by P.W.4/Rana Safdar Ali, thus, on the basis of appreciation of the evidence, the learned Judge awarded the decree in favour of the respondent and appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. Hence this revision petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the cheque was not encashed, and therefore, the respondent himself had not fulfilled the obligation under the agreement and was not ready and willing to perform his part, resultantly, he could not enforce the agreement to sell.
When questioned, if this cheque was ever presented to the bank authority from where it is alleged to have been bounced, no evidence has been led; the original cheque, if not given to Haji Aslam, should have been available with the petitioner, but it is not explained in a plausible and probable manner, where it has gone or is still with the petitioner, and that the depositions of Haji Muhammad Aslam/P.W.3 and Rana Safdar Ali/P.W.4, about the return of the cheque and the receipt of the cash amount, are false. It is even not established, that on the requisite date stipulated for the encashment of the cheque, Haji Muhammad Aslam had no funds in the bank account, and thus, it is for this reason that the payment could not be arranged or received by the petitioner. As there is no misreading or non-reading of the evidence by the Courts below, and particularly for the reason that the agreement to sell could only be enforced after the proprietary rights were conferred upon the petitioner, which admittedly in this case have been so given to him on 24-6-1990, therefore, the respondent was justified to institute the suit after the petitioner got these rights. Neither any factual nor legal infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below, calling for interference in the revisional jurisdiction, has been shown. Dismissed.