' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---Muhammad Arif (respondent No,2) was proceeded against ex parte on 6-12-2005. However, he has entered appearance through counsel. The ex parte order against him is recalled.
2. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement, whereby.
Allah Ditta respondent/defendant had agreed to sell the suit-land measuring 6 Kanals, 12 Marlas to the petitioners. This agreement was according to learned counsel, evidenced by an agreement (Exh.P.1), dated 15-9-1994, an earlier agreement (Exh.P.2), dated 12-7-1994 and also by the contents of rapt roznamcha waqaiti.
3. The vendor Allah Ditta (respondent No,1) filed a written statement but did not appear in the witness-box himself nor did he produce any witness to controvert the contents of the plaint.
4. Learned counsel contended that in the circumstances the testimony of the witnesses produced by the petitioners and the statements of the two petitioners Muhammad Yousaf as P.W.5 and Muhammad Asghar as P.W.6 were sufficient proof of the agreements, referred to above. According to him, this was particularly so as to agreements (Exh.P.1) and Exh.P.2) and a receipt (Exh.P.3) were exhibited on the record without objection.
5. The suit, however, was contested by Muhammad Arif (respondent No,2), who claimed that Allah Ditta vendor had executed an agreement, dated 3-10-1994 in his favour for 3 kanals out of the total area sold to the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the mere fact that Allah Ditta had not appeared in the witness box did not absolve the petitioners of their responsibility to prove the execution of the agreement as required by the Qanun-eShahadat Order.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that neither Ashraf nor Ameer, who are the two marginal witnesses to the agreement (Exh.P.2), were produced and no explanation was given as to why these witnesses were not produced. Only Muhammad Ismail appeared as P.W.4 to prove the agreement whose sole testimony was rightly held by the Courts below to be insufficient for proving the agreement. This contention has merit.
7. The learned Courts below were, therefore, justified in holding that the agreement had not been proved. In this view of the matter, the impugned decrees are unexceptionable. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to advert to any such jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity in the impugned judgments, which would justify interference therein while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this petition, which is, therefore, dismissed.