JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.- The appellant/plaintiff Muhammad Islam impugns the concurrent decrees of the learned Trial Court dated 14.10.2000, and of the learned Appellate Court dated 10.5.2005, whereby a suit filed by the appellant seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 14.7.1994 (Ex.P.5) has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has, firstly, pointed out that in the short order passed by the learned Trial Court appearing on its order sheet, the suit of the appellant is stated to have been decreed.
However, when the appellant obtained a copy of the judgment in. English, he found out that his suit had been dismissed. The learned Court of first appeal has not given much weight to this circumstance and has held that this could have been on account of inadvertence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that nothing turns on this.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Courts below have misread the evidence on record by holding that the agreement (Exh.P.5) is a forged document. I have considered the available evidence and find that the conclusion reached by the learned Courts is not unfounded. It is not in dispute that the respondent, Rashid Ahmad, was owner of 9-Kanals, 5- marlas of land, which he had agreed to sell to various persons. He appeared as his own witness and admitted his signature on Exh.P.5 but deposed that his signature had been obtained on the pretext that the document was a power-of-attorney. His testimony is credible and has been rightly believed by the learned Courts below.
4. According to the respondent/defendant one Haji Abdul Majeed was a property dealer who had entered into the bargain with him but instead of an agreement it was agreed that he was to be given a power-of-attorney so that he could sell the property to the ultimate purchasers. According to the arrangement between the respondent and Haji Abdul Majeed the latter was entitled to retain any amount in excess of the sum agreed upon as consideration, To support this contention the respondent produced powersof-attorney, which are Exhs. D.2 to D.5 on the record in favour of other persons in respect of parcels of the land owned by him. Relying on this evidence both Courts have concluded that the respondent had been tricked into executing the agreement (Exh.P.5) in the belief that it was a power-of-attorney similar to the above-noted powers-of- attorney which also relate to the parts of same total area of 9-kanals, 5-marlas owned by the respondent.
5. In the circumstances, I find the impugned concurrent decrees to be unexceptionable.
Furthermore learned counsel for the appellant was unable to show the existence of any of the grounds mentioned in section 100, CPC, which would justify interference in the impugned decrees.
This appeal, as a consequence, is dismissed.
RSA dismissed.