' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 26-5-1999 the petitioners filed a suit for specific performance against the respondents Nos.1 and 2. In the plaint it was stated that the said respondents agreed to sell the suit-land mentioned in the plaint for a consideration of Rs.50,000. They received Rs.40,000 as earnest money and executed an agreement dated 29-12-1990 and got it registered. However, they have refused to perform their part of the contract. The respondents in their written statement denied having agreed to sell the land to the petitioners or to have received any money from them or to have executed the agreement. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded.
Vide judgment and decree dated 17-2-2004 the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. A first appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned A.D.J., D.G. Khan, on 3-3-2005.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that his clients were misled by an admission contained in a reply filed by the respondents to the application for grant of temporary injunction and could not produce the evidence and that their application for additional evidence ought to have been allowed by the learned Court of first appeal.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. The position is that neither the original agreement was produced nor any attempt was made to prove the same in accordance with law. It is, therefore, a case of no evidence.
4. Now coming to the said contention of the learned counsel, I do find that in a written reply filed by a learned counsel to stay application it stands mentioned that the money was returned and the agreement came to an end. However, to my mind, nothing turns on the said document. The reason being that the issues were framed on the basis of the said pleadings already reproduced by me above. Issue No.4 is to the following effect:-- "Whether the defendants agreed to sell the suit property and received Rs.40,000 as earnest money through agreement to sell dated 29-12-1990? OPP."
5. To my mind it cannot at all be said that the petitioners were not aware as to what was the plea of the respondents. They were required to prove the said issue. They failed to lead any evidence to prove the same.
6. Now what is more important is that Muhammad Fayyaz respondent/defendant appeared as D.W.1 on 5-1-2004 to state that he or his mother who is an illiterate aged lady have not executed any agreement and they have not received any money and that they have not appeared before any Tehsildar for registration. This defendant was cross-examined at quite some length. However, he was not at all confronted with the said reply to the said application, being relied upon by the learned counsel. By now the law is well-settled that where a witness is to be contradicted with reference to some earlier statement or admission, this can be done only by confronting him with the said previous statement while he is in the witness-box. This is the burden of Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in numerous judgments starting from the case of Sikandar flayat and 4 others v. Master Fazal Karim (PLD 1971 SC 730).
7. Now the application for additional evidence has been duly considered by the learned A.D.J. And rejected for reasons which are fully supported by the judgment in the case of Muhammad Yousaf and others v. Mst. Maqsooda Anjum and others (2004 SCM R 1049) relied upon the said learned Judge. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed in limine.