JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J. --- The petitioners-defendants impugn the appellate judgment and decree dated 8.12.1997, whereby the decree of the learned Trial Court dated 18.12.1995 was reversed and a suit filed by the respondents seeking specific performance of agreements to sell dated 26.1.1978 and 24.4.1978 was decreed.
2. The facts of the case have been elaborately setout. In the appellate judgment and need and therefore, be reproduced in extenso.
3. The petitioners-defendants and denied execution of the agreements. The learned Appellate Court, however, noted that the execution of the agreements had been duly proved. Furthermore, there was un-controvertible evidence that the petitioners had executed a power-of attorney in favour of the brother of the respondent-plaintiff on 26.4.1978, which was then cancelled through abta nama executed eight years later on 22.11.1986. Learned counsel for the petitioners acknowledged that the respondent and his brother were not, in any manner, related to the petitioners. He was unable to explain as to why a power-of-attorney was then executed in favour of the respondent's brother. This circumstance has rightly been given weight by the learned Appellate Court for holding that the agreements in question were, in fact, executed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff after receipt of the total consideration and delivery of the disputed property to the respondent.
4. In addition to the above, learned counsel for the respondent adverted to the written statement submitted on behalf of the petitioners wherein they asserted that the respondent was their tenant or the basis of a written rent agreement . No such agreement was produced in evidence.
Furthermore, when the petitioner appeared in Court, he changed his position by stating that there was no rent agreement.
5. In the foregoing circumstances. I find the impugned appellate decree to be unexceptable being consistent with the record. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to advert to any such jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity in the impugned judgment, which would justify interference therein while exercising revisional jurisdiction in these circumstances, I find no merit in this petition, which is therefore, dismissed. .