SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J. --- On the basis of an alleged agreement to sell dated 30.3.1987 claimed to have been affirmed by the Civil Court on 12.6.1998 a suit for. Specific performance thereof was filed by Shahadat Khan deceased predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, which was contested by the respondent. After trial, 'the suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.9.1994. Appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondent however was accepted by the learned appellant Court vide judgment dated 6.3.2003. This is revision petition in that context.
2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and material on the record considered.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly. Places reliance upon the statement of the parties made on 12.6.1988 and the order of even date passed by the Civil Court in the earlier suit titled "Taj son of .Nawab Vs. Shahadat Khan son of Sarang Khan" and contends that the respondent had owned and affirmed agreement dated 30.3.1987 therefore, the finding of the learned Appellate Court are contrary to evidence. The. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand denies the worth and authenticity of the same. He disowns even .The thumb impression as it appears on the copy of the order sheet dated 12.6.1988 (Ex. P.3).
4. As mentioned above, the suit was based on agreement dated 30.3.1987 as affirmed by the Civil Court dated 12.6.1988. Prima facie it appears that. Such a statement was made by the respondent as a result of compromise between the parties. The learned Trial Judge had returned findings in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff on Issue No. 4, i.e. "whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for specific performance on the basis of agreement dated' 30.3.1987 and compromise dated 12.6.1988, if so, on what terms? OPP". The findings however, were reversed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gojra, on 'the appeal preferred by the respondent, who was of the view that the petitioner/plaintiff had not succeeded in proving the agreement dated 30.3.1987, and that the compromise and the order of Civil Court dated 12.6.1988, had been denied by the respondent. In such view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner has offered that the matter may be remanded to the Trial Court on 12.6.1988 and his thumb impression is proved in accordance with law. In such context. When the authenticity of the judicial proceedings and order of the Court in the suit are being disputed, and denied by the respondent, I consider it just and proper that both the parties should have equal opportunity to prove their respective versions by producing such evidence as they may like to do. Suffice it to observe that it was observed in North-West Frontier Province Government, Peshawar through Collector, Abbottabad and another Vs. Abdul Ghafoor Khan through Legal Heirs and 2 others (PLD 1993 SC 418), that "the entire body of the procedural law is meant for advancement of the cause of justice and not to pose any technical difficulty in the way of the Court to unveil the truth and do complete justice between the litigating parties, for the administration of which alone it has been created". Such an observation was made by the apex Court while considering the scope of the provisions of Rule 25 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when it was further observed that "the underlying principle and the procedure envisaged thereby regulating the way, for ascertaining the truth as to the factuar aspect of the case, with reference, to the evidence .On the record, with necessary adoption, not forbidden by law, can well be applied to the instant case". To achieve that object by accepting the appeal the case was remanded by their Lordships to the Trial Court. Since in the present. Case the truth about the compromise between the parties referred and. Recorded by the Civil Court on 12.6.1988 need to -be unveiled, the suggestion so made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is found to be reasonable and fair. Suffice it to observe that the fate of the suit filed by the petitioner hinged upon the findings on Issue No.4 but both the Courts had variant approach to the evidence on the record.
Thus the judgments are set aside and the case is remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law after affording equal opportunity to .Both the parties of producing evidence in support of their respective pleas. Let the parties enter appearance before the Trial Court on 1.3.2005, who will take all possible steps for decision of the suit before the commencement of summer vacation of the year 2005.
The revision petition is accepted accordingly in the above terms. No order as to costs. .