' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The instant RFA.No,19 of 2000 as also C.R.No,385 of 2000, are being disposed of together, as these are directed against the same judgment and decrees, and common question of law and facts are involved in both these matters.
2. The dispute between the parties, relates to specific enforcement of an agreement to sell. The suit of the respondent No, 1 in this behalf, was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 7-3-1996 and the appeal of the appellant has failed on 19-1-2000.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, respondent No, 1 brought a suit for specific performance claiming that the appellant through an agreement dated 22-11-1990 had agreed to sell the suit property i.e, quarter No P-859, situated in D-Type Colony, Faisalabad, for a total consideration of Rs,1,66,000 out of which Rs,35,000 were received by the appellant, as advance and it was settled between the parties that the transaction of sale coupled with the delivery of possession, shall be made by respondent No 1 by 25-2-1991. However, the appellant failed to perform his part of agreement, resultantly, after sending telegrams to the appellant, Exh.P.3 to Ex.P.5, the respondent No,1 was constrained to file the civil suit on 27-2-1991. The appellant contested the matter and denied the agreement to sell rather claimed it to be the result of fraud and misrepresentation .It may be pertinent to state here that, the appellant also filed a suit for declaration, challenging the agreement to sell on the ground of fraud etc; these cases were consolidated, and the result is that after framing of issues and recording the evidence in both the matters, the learned Civil Judge, allowed the suit of the respondent vide judgment and decree dated 7-3-1996 but that of the appellant was dismissed; the appellant had challenged the judgment and decrees in both through appeals which were dismissed on 19-1-2000, hence these appeal and revision.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, the respondent has failed to prove the execution of the agreement to, sell inasmuch as the record of the scribe as also that of the stamp- vendor has not been produced; besides, the appellant always affixed his signatures in English, whereas the signatures on the alleged agreement to sell are in Urdu; furthermore, the signatures on the agreement to sell Exh.P.1 and the receipt Exh.P.2 does not tally and consequently, the respondent had failed to prove the valid execution of the agreement.
5. I am afraid, these contentions have no force. The respondent had examined the marginal witnesses of the agreement to sell and the receipt, who duly proved the documents. The record of the stamp vender and the scribe was not available and thus, if on account of that reason, it was not tendered in evidence, when even attempt was made by the respondent, no presumption can be drawn against the respondent. Moreover the appellant never applied to the Courts below for seeking the opinion of the handwriting expert about the signature on the agreement to sell and the A receipt.
6. As regard the argument that, the signatures on the two documents are different and can be viewed by a naked eye, I, have compared the two signatures and find not much discrepant.
Anyhow, I would not like to express much opinion on this, because it was the duty of the appellant as mentioned earlier to have sought the opinion of the expert in this behalf. Resultantly, I do not find any defect of misreading and non-reading in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below. Therefore, these, appeal and revision, have no merits and area hereby dismissed.