' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.--- This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 22-4-2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Okara affirming the judgment and decree, dated 13-4- 2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Okara whereby the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The petitioner is owner of plot measuring 2 Marlas and 1 Sarsahi located in Saith Colony, Okara through a registered sale deed, dated 15-3-1975, a mutation to this effect was also sanctioned on 20-8-1989. The respondent No,1 filed a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement, dated 1980, entered into between him and Ahmad Mustafa deceased through his daughter Mst.
Mubaraka Begum, a consenting written statement was filed, thereafter the suit was decreed, execution application was filed, in garb of these proceedings, the respondent No,1 took over the possession of the petitioner's plot. The petitioner filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C.
Challenging this judgment and decree. The application was contested by the defendants/respondents, issues were framed, the parties were put to trial, the trial Court dismissed the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Aggrieved thereof, a revision was filed by the petitioner before the Additional District Judge, Okara who dismissed the application under section 12(2), C.P.C.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned judgment is not in consonance with law, it failed to examine the effect of Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, the respondents did not produce best evidence but no adverse order was passed against them, the objections in connected suit were not disposed, and any decision on the then will effect the outcome of the present matter.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and defended it vigorously, according to the learned counsel, the petition itself was not competent, re-appraisal of evidence is not possible, in the present proceedings, the proceedings under the suit for possession are independent, and will not the affect the application under section 12(2), C .P.C. In any manner, thus the petitioner warrants no interference.
5. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned judgment.
6. The trial Court after hearing the parties, framed 7 issues, both parties produced evidence, after examining the evidence tendered by the parties, the trial Court dismissed the present application.
Aggrieved thereof, a revision petition was filed before the lower Appellate Court which too considered the material evidence brought on record by both the parties, it examined in depth the evidence tendered on the parameters and yardstick of section 12(2), C.P.C. No mis-representation or fraud etc. Could be proved. The record reflects that no concrete or convincing evidence has been produced in terms of the parameter of section 12(2), C.P.C. The petitioner is required to prove his case on the yardstick set therein, even the grounds of the instant petition relate to non-disposal of objection in the suit for possession or at best not appreciating the documentary evidence, no convincing evidence qua fraud or misrepresentation has been produced, there is a concurrent finding against the petitioner no jurisdiction error or mis-application of law has been pointed out, resultantly, this petition has no merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs.