' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.-This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 17-2- 2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge Shakargarh, District Narowal whereby appeal brought by petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 5-9-2001 passed by learned Civil Judge, Shakargarh was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that petitioner filed suit for specific performance against the respondents and stated that Atta Muhammad and Mst. Raisham Bibi (respondents Nos.l and 2) were owners of suit-land (measuring 26 Kanals, 8 .Marlas bearing Khewat No.44, Khatuni Nos. 100 to 108, situated in Village Kakkeywali Tehsil Shakargarh- District Narowal) and they agreed to sell the same in his favour for a consideration of Rs. 1,80,000,,They received Rs. 1,70,000 as earnest money and executed agreement dated 16-11-1994 in his favour and as per agreement they had to execute sale-deed till 5-12-1994. The petitioner further stated that he asked the defendants/respondents to execute registered sale-deed as per agreement dated 16-11- 1994 but they refused, therefore, he was constrained to file suit. The petitioner averred that during pendency of case Atta Muhammad, respondent transferred his share in favour of his brother (respondent No. 3,Muhammad Sadiq) vide Mutation No. 136' dated 14-2-1996, therefore, the same is ineffective qua his rights. Atta Muhammad and Muhammad Sadiq mentioned in written statement that Atta Muhammad had not agreed to sell suit-land in favour of petitioner and that if agreement bears his thumb impression the same is based on fraud and forgery. They further stated that on 16-1-1995 plaintiff reached a compromise and agreed to get Rs.7,000 from Atta Muhammad and he had to withdraw the case but later on he resiled. However Mst. Raisham Bibi did not appear before learned trial Court, therefore, she was proceeded against ex parte. Learned trial Court framed issues, recorded evidence and dismissed the suit brought by petitioner to the extent of respondents Nos.1 to 3 whereas suit to the extent of respondent No. 2 was decreed vide judgment dated 5-9-2001. The petitioner filed appeal thereagainst, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 17-2-2003 passed by learned Additional District . Judge, Shakargarh District Narowal. Hence this revision petition.,
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. [1] As mentioned above the case of petitioner is that respondents Nos.l and 2 agreed to sell suit- land in his favour for a consideration of Rs. 1,80,000 and received Rs. 1,70,000 as earnest money and executed agreement dated 16-11-1994 in his favour. The case of Atta Muhammad, respondent is .That he had never agreed to sell suit- land in favour of petitioner. Also that on 16-1-1995, plaintiff/petitioner agreed to withdraw the suit after receiving Rs.7,000 from him regarding expenses of the suit instituted by him. Mst. Raisham Bibi did not appear before learned trial. Court and she was proceeded against ex parte. The petitioner examined P.W.l, Muhammad Akram, petition writer in support of his case. During cross-examination he stated that he had purchased stamp paper for writing agreement to sell in question. He admitted that criminal cases of fabricating false and bogus documents are pending against him. As such his statement is not convincing and confidence-inspiring. The petitioner also examined P.W.3 Mst. Raisham Bibi, P.W.4 Khairat Hussain, P.W.5 Ali Muhammad and himself appeared as P.W.2. However statements of P.Ws.
Are not convincing and confidence- inspiring. So I find that petitioner has failed to prove that Atta Muhammad, respondent agreed to sell suit-land in his favour. The defendant examined D.W.l, Muhammad Hussain. He stated that parties had reached a qompromise and he produce agreement Exh.D.l which bears his signature. According to this document (Exh.D.l), plaintiff agreed to receive Rs.7,000 from his brother (Muhammad Sadiq, respondent No.3) and he had to withdraw the case filed by him against Atta Muhammad. It is pertinent to note that the ' plaintiff while appearing as P.W.2 admitted during cross- examination that agreement/compromise was written by Maqsood Sulehri, Advocate and he had obtained his thumb-impression. He also admitted that it was settled that whenever Atta Muhammad would sell his land, he would sell the same to plaintiff and that as per compromise plaintiff and defendant (Sadiq) had to purchase suit-land but compromise was not completed. However he admitted that according to compromise he had to withdraw the suit but explained that compromise was not completed. It shows that petitioner reached a compromise and he (petitioner) had to withdraw the suit after getting Rs.7,000. As such I find that plaintiff/petitioner has failed to prove this case. So learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the suit brought by petitioner/plaintiff. The judgment dated 17-2-2003 shows that learned Additional District Judge has decided the appeal brought "by petitioner after appraisal of entire material available on record. Learned Additional District Judge observed that:- "From perusal of evidence led by the appellant I feel no hesitation to conclude that the P.Ws. Are mutually discrepant and the evidence led by the appellant is not confidence inspiring. Muhammad Hussain was examined as D.W.l he has categorically stated on 15-1-1995. Muhammad Sadiq and Atta Muhammad came to him and requested him to resolve their dispute he along with them came to the chamber of Maqsood Ahmad Sulehri, Advocate where compromise was scribed copy of the same as Exh.D.l. Muhammad Sadiq appeared as D.W.2 he has categorically stated that Atta Muhammad never executed Iqrar- Nama in favour of appellant and further stated that compromise was settled through Muhammad Hussain Bajwa D.W.l. Muhammad Hanif being special attorney of Atta Muhammad appeared in the witness-box as D.W.3. He has categorically stated that the impugned Iqrar-Nama was result of fraud, Atta Muhammad never received any consideration from the appellant when the dispute grose Punchait was convened and the compromise was settled between the parties. - Perusal of Exh.D.l, dated 16-1-1995 would reveal that compromise was settled between appellant and Atta Muhammad through intervention of respectables of the locality and it was agreed upon when Atta Muhammad would sell his land the same would be sold in favour of appellant and the appellant after receiving a sum of Rs.7,00.0 which he had spent on filing and prosecution of the suit would withdraw the suit. As discussed earlier this fact had also been admitted by Ghulam Muhammad the appellant while appearing as P.W.2 in his cross-examination. From the available record particularly Exh.D.l suffice it to conclude that the impugned Iqrarnama was never scribed by Atta Muhammad in favour ; of appellant.
(13) So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment and decree' are result- of misreading and non reading of evidence, suffice it, to say that. The learned counsel for the appellant even during arguments could not point out any material ' piece of evidence which has either been misread and non-read by the learned trial Court.
(14) I have examined the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and find that he has embarked upon every aspect of the case and while deciding Issue No.! Against the appellant he has discussed each and every witness as well as document produced by the parties."
It is well-reasoned judgment. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Likewise there is not misreading or non-reading of evidence, therefore, there is no justification to disturb the concurrent findings recorded by learned Courts below.
5.The upshot of the above discussion is that this revision petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.