' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This civil review petition has been filed against the order of this Court, dated 25-10-2001.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that petitioner Mian Muhammad son of Ghulam Rubbani filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 19-11-1985 against the respondents as well as the original owners on the averments that the latter after having sold the disputed property, vide agreement referred to hereinbefore, and despite receiving token money of Rs,35,000 had alienated the disputed land through a separate sale-deed in favour of contesting respondents without any justification. Thus, petitioner prayed that the sale-deed in favour of respondents may be cancelled. Simultaneously, respondents Muhammad Sabir, and others, who had purchased the property, also filed a suit for possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned trial Court, vide consolidated judgment, dated 19-12-1995, decreed the suit filed by petitioner Mian Muhammad subject to payment of Rs,1,30,600, whereas dismissed the suit filed by respondents Muhammad Sabir and others. The respondents preferred an appeal challenging decree and also a revision petition against dismissal of their suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief 'Act before learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad. Learned Appellate Court, vide judgment, dated 19-10- 2000, accepted both the appeal and revision, as a result whereof the suit filed by petitioner Mian Muhammad was dismissed and the suit of respondents was allowed.
3. Petitioner Mian Muhammad preferred R.S. A . No,125 of 2000 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore which had been dismissed in limine, vide impugned order, dated 10-11-2000. The petitioner assailed above order through Civil Petition No,721-L of 2001 which was initially dismissed on 25-10-2001.
However, on filing of the instant review petition following order, dated 18-11-2002 was passed and notices were issued to the respondents:-- "Through this application permission has been sought by the petitioner for change of his lawyer.
Previously Mr. Ali Ahmed Awan, Advocate Supreme Court appeared before this Court but according to the statement of the petitioner, Mr. Awan is stationed at Lahore and it is not possible for petitioner to bring him to Islamabad after bearing travelling expenses. The reason assigned for not bringing the learned counsel are not convincing and are not acceptable, therefor, the application is dismissed.
(2) We have heard the petitioner in person, who agitated that vide Exh.P.1 he entered into an agreement to purchase the disputed plot from Muhammad Ashraf, Ahmed Khan and Muhammad Fazal as back as 1985 and in pursuance of said agreement also paid Rs,35,000 by means of a valid receipt. Thereafter original owners had sold the property through sale-deed Exh.D.3, D.4 and D.5 to the respondents. He claimed to have produced sufficient evidence before the trial Court to prove his plea and the suit filed by him was decreed on 19-12-1995. However, the learned District Judge without assigning cogent reasons reversed the decree vide order, dated 19-10-2000 and the second appeal filed by him before the High Court was dismissed in limine. According to him, he has produced the scribe of the agreement along with the witnesses and as far as second witness is concerned, he was dead, therefore, he could not be produced to prove contents of the documents.
That the High Court had dismissed the appeal in limine despite the fact that there were diverse findings of fact recorded by the trial Court as well as the District Court.
(3) After hearing the petitioner in person, we consider it proper to issue notice to the respondents.
In the meanwhile, record of the case from the trial Court may also be summoned.
(4) Adjourned to a date in office."
4. In response to the notice Malik Yousaf Farooq learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared for the respondents whereas petitioner argued the case himself.
5. It is contended by the petitioner that his suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 19-11-1985 was decreed by learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence so produced by him, accepted execution of agreement to be legal and valid, but learned Additional District Judge has reversed the findings of fact recorded by the learned trial Court without assigning any cogent reasons. He challenged the appellate judgment before learned High Court through R.S.A. No,125 of 2000 which has been dismissed by it in limine without examining the evidence available on record.
6. We inquired from the learned counsel for the respondents as to whether it was not necessary for the High Court to deeply examine the record in view of a divergent opinion on facts between the appellate and trial Courts. He could not answer satisfactorily, except contending that execution of agreement dated 19-11-1985 was not proved by the petitioner in accordance with law.
7. After hearing petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents we are of the opinion that the contentions raised in the memo. Of the appeal in respect of admissibility or otherwise of the agreement dated 19-11-1985 required to be examined in detail by the learned High Court for coming to the just conclusion, i.e, whether the agreement has been validly executed between the petitioner and original owners on the basis of evidence available on record. Such exercise was all the more necessary in view of divergent opinion of two Courts below.
8. Thus, for above reasons, review petition is allowed as a consequence whereof the order, dated 25-10-2001 is recalled and on converting Civil Petition No,721-L of 2001 into appeal same is accepted. The impugned order, dated 10-11-2000 is set aside and case is remanded to the High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
' No order as to costs.
Revision .