' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The appellant filed a suit, against the respondents, on 21-2-1987, for specific performance of agreement, dated 23-2-1984 (Exh.P.1) before the Civil Judge Chichawatni, District Sahiwal. It was averred in the plaint that respondent No,2 (present in Court) being general attorney of respondent No,1 had executed the agreement for the sale of the suit- land measuring 36 acres and 4 Kanals for the consideration of Rs,65,000 out of which a sum of Rs,40,000 was paid as an earnest money. Another sum of Rs,20,000 was paid to the general attorney on 7-4-1984. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 25- 3-1991. The appeal by the respondent lady was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Chichawatni, on 15-104995. Therefore, she filed Civil Revision No,912 of 1995 which was allowed by a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, vide impugned judgment, dated 11-1- 2005. Consequently, the suit of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The learned counsel argued that the High Court was not justified in reversing the concurrent findings of fact arrived at, after proper appreciation of evidence of the parties. The cancellation of the power of attorney of respondent No,2 by the respondent lady on 18-7-1984 was of no consequence qua the agreement to sell dated 23-2-1984 (Exh.P.1) by the general attorney of the respondent No,
1. The execution of the agreement, dated 23-2-1984 (Exh.P.1) was duly proved by the protection of its scribe and marginal witnesses.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and have also perused the available record. The High Court noticed material discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1, Khan Muhammad, Advocate, and P.W.5, the appellant. The P.W.1 stated that he had scribed an agreement which was signed by the general attorney, the respondent No,2. The appellant, however stated that first of all Abdul Hameed, respondent No,2 had put his signatures earlier than Khursheed. Exh.P.1. Did not bear the signatures of the, appellant. Muhammad Aslam, marginal witness appeared as P.W.3 and stated that he had no knowledge about the general attorney, Abdul Hameed, respondent. No,2, as he had already left after putting his signatures. The learned counsel had failed to clarify the position as to the material discrepancies of the P.Ws. Apparent on the face of the record. Needless to observe that the Revenue Record for the year 1984 was not produced to show that the possession of the suit-land was obtained by the appellant contemporaneously with the execution of the agreement to sell dated 23-2-1984. The trial. Court- as well as the First Appellate Court had fallen in error of misreading and non-reading of material evidence on record.
We do not find any defect or other legal infirmity in the judgment of the High Court so as to warrant interference by this Court.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed.