' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.--On the basis of alleged agreement to sell dated 29-4-1994 by Asiq. Ali, respondent No,2 herein, in favour of respondent No,1, suit for specific performance thereof was instituted by respondent No,1. The same was contested deny* execution thereof through the written statement jointly filed by respondent No,2 and the petitioners. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, the suit was dismissed by the trial court with the direction that Ashiq Ali will refund the amount received from the plaintiff. This was vide judgment, dated 26-3-1998. The respondent/plaintiff and Ashiq Ali filed appeals there against. The said appeals were heard by the learned appellate court who accepted the appeal filed by respondent No,1 granting decree for specific performance and dismissed the appeal of Ashiq Ali. This revision petition has now been filed by the petitioners who claim to be subsequent vendees from Ashiq Ali. Similar position obtains in Civil Revision No,2543/2001 and Civil Revision No,2544/2001 which have been heard together and will stand disposed of by this judgment.
2. The learned, counsel have been heard and material on the record has been perused and considered: ' The learned counsel for the petitioners has primarily laid stress that the alleged agreement dated 29-4-1994 Exh.P.1 was a forged and fabricated document which according to him is evident from the bare perusal thereof. It is contended that the number of Identity Card of Ashiq Ali as mentioned in the agreement did not tally with his Identity Card whose address was also different than his real -address. Another aspect which is canvassed is that the scribe of the document Khadim Hussain was neither summoned nor produced. It is, thus, contended that since the very execution and signature thereon/thumb-impression was denied by Ashiq Ali, it was the duty of the respondent/plaintiff to have got compared the same as envisaged by Articles 78 and 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Relies upon Shams-ud-Din through L. Rs v. Abid Hussain through L.Rs,(2006 CLC 571) and Muhammad Ramzan v. Saif Nadeem Electro (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Chairman and 5 others (PLD 2006 Lahore 571). It is also contended that since the alleged agreement had been drawn on a simple paper (not the stamp paper) it was the duty of the plaintiff/respondent to have proved execution thereof beyond any shadow of doubt.
' The learned counsel for respondent No,1 contends that in the joint written statement submitted by the petitioners and Ashiq Ali, respondent No,2, no plea was taken as to their bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice. It is contended that so far as the execution of agreement in favour of respondent No,1 by Ashiq Ali respondent No,2 is concerned, there are concurrent findings by the courts below and no interference is warranted by this court in revisional jurisdiction.
3. The case set up by respondent No, 1/plaintiff was that Ashiq Ali had executed the agreement, dated 29-4-1994 in favour of respondent No,1 (in each of the petition) and despite the same, the said Ashiq Ali sold the land through Mutation No,817, dated 25-9-1995 in favour of the present petitioners. In their written statement jointly filed by Ashiq Ali, respondent No,2, and the petitioners, it was the foremost plea that no such agreement had been executed by Ashiq Ali in favour of the plaintiffs and the one claimed by them was forged, fabricated and based on fraud. The under- mentioned issues were framed by the trial court: "ISSUES:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree suit for Specific Performance of contract on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 29-4-1994, as prayed for? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff has paid the amount Rs,14350 to the defendant as an earnest money and rest amount was to be paid at the time of execution of registration sale-deed or attestation of mutation? OPP
(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(4) Whether the possession of the suit property was delivered by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff? If so its effect? OPP
(5) Whether the suit valuation for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction is incorrect? If so its effect? OPD
(6) Whether the description of the suit property is incorrect? If so, its effect? OPD
(7) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to get the discretionary relief under section 42 of Specific Relief Act? If so, its effect? OPD
(8) Whether the defendants are entitled to get the special costs from the plaintiff under section 35- A C.P.C? If so to what extent? OPD
(9) Relief."
' The plaintiffs in their respective suits appeared as P.W.1 and produced Muhammad Iqbal P.W.2 and Muhammad Yousaf P.W.3 the attesting witnesses. The scribe of the document Khadim Hussain, however, was not produced for any undisclosed reasons. Ashiq Ali D. W.1 had categorically deposed that he had not entered into any agreement with the plaintiffs nor received any earnest money from them and their assertion as to agreement was false and frivolous suits had been filed. In, such circumstances, when there was clear and absolute denial of execution of agreements by Ashiq Ali, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to have proved to the execution of agreements by following the methodology provided in Articles 78 and 84 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Reference in this context may be made to Hamid Qayyum and 2 others v. Muhammad Azeem through legal heirs and another (PLD 1995 SC. 381), Rehmat Ali Ismailia v. Khalid Mehmood 2004 SCMR 361) and.
Siraj Din v. Mst. Jamilan and another (PLD 1997 Lahore 633). Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, the pleadings and deposition on oath of Ashiq Ali, it was eminently necessary for the respondent/plaintiff to have proved the execution of agreement Exh.P.1. 'signature/thumb- impression thereon of Ashiq Ali in accordance with law which was not done. The view taken by the courts below is not consistent with the pleadings, the evidence and the law applicable and, thus, loses its worth. In order to meet the ends of justice, I am inclined to set aside the judgments rendered by the two courts below and remand the matter to the trial court for decision afresh in accordance with law enabling the 'parties to prove their respective pleas by producing such further evidence as may be warranted.
' As a result of the above, the revision petitions are accepted to the extent mentioned above. Parties to bear their own costs.