CH. IJAZ AHMED, J. --- The brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that predecessor- in-interest of the respondents Nos. 1 to 6/defendants Nos. .1 to 6 was allottee of land in question measuring 57 kanals, 6 marlas under Tarbela Dam Affectees Scheme situated in Chak No. 174/10-R, Tehsil Jahanian, District Khanewal. After his death it was transferred to his L.Rs. Present respondents Nos. 1 to 6 who agreed to sell the land in question to the petitioners. Vide agreement to sell dated 3.11.1983 for a consideration of Rs. 14200/-. The possession of the land in question was also handed over to the petitioners. All government dues: have been paid by the petitioners/plaintiffs but respondents Nos. 1 to 6 refused to execute the sale-deed in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs.
Petitioners being aggrieved filed suit for specific performance in the Court of Civil Judge, Khanewal on 27.10.1991. Respondents filed written statement, controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed. 6 issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 18.12.2000.
Petitioners being aggrieved filed appeal before the Addl. District Judge who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 16.6.2005. Thereafter the petitioners being' aggrieved filed civil revision in .The Lahore High Court, Multan Bench which was also dismissed. Hence, this petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the Courts below had decided the case against the petitioners by misreading and non-reading of the record. He further submits that learned High Court had decided the case against the petitioners as none of the petitioners entered appearance in the witness-box to face the weapon of cross-examination and also failed to produce general power-of-attorney executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioners at the time of execution of agreement to sell with the petitioners.
3. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. It is admitted fact that the petitioners had produced only one witness PW-1 Sher Bahadur to prove the execution of agreement Ex. PI as evident from para. 9 of the judgment of the Addl. District Judge. According to Articles 17 and 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, petitioners had to produce two attesting witnesses of the agreement in question. As mentioned above, petitioners had produced only one witness to prove' the agreement to sell, therefore, all the Courts below were justified to non-suit the petitioners as law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements. See Suleman Al.s case (PLJ 2000 Lah. 1723), Maqsood Ahmad's ase (PLD 2003 SC 31), Qazi Muhammad Saqib Khan's case (2003 M LD 131). The learned High Court had taken a of pain to re-appraise the evidence on record as evident frdm paragraphs 5 to 9 of the impugned judgment. The learned High Court has very limited jurisdiction to meddle with the concurrent findings of the Courts below while exercising power under Section 115, C.P.C. There are various pronouncements in this regard of this Court and the Privy Council. See N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyanger's case (PLD 1949 P C." 26), Muhammad Akhtar's case (2001 SCM R 1700) and Abdul Rahim's case (2000 SCM R 346). It is settled law that specific performance in an equitable relief and the Courts below have rightly declined to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners with cogent reasons The judgments of the Courts below are in consonance wit the law laid down by this Court in Irshad Hussain's case (NLR 1994 SCJ ,134) and this Court does not, normall , interfere with the concurrent findings of Courts below n exercise of the power under Article 185(3) of the Constituti n unless there is defect of misreading or non-reading of t e record. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed o point out any misreading of evidence and thus we havi g found no substance in this petition, dismiss the same and refuse the leave.