' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---This civil revision calls in question the judgment and decree, dated 23-2- 2008 and 19-11-2005 passed by the learned Courts below whereby the suit for specific performance of an agreement of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell against Messrs Munir Hussain and Muhammad Shoaib, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that both the respondents entered into an agreement to sell to alienate the suit- land for consideration. Thereafter another agreement was executed between the parties on 2-11- 1987 whereby it was agreed that the suit-land would be transferred in the name of the petitioner after its redemption. The suit-land has fully been described in the head note of the plaint. Further stated in the plaint that as the suit-land was already mortgaged, therefore, no date was fixed in the agreement for the specific performance of the same, the petitioner waited for a long time for execution of the agreement. The moment, the petitioner came to know that the suit-land had been redeemed, asked the respondents to perform the agreement but the respondents refused to accede the legal and genuine demand of the petitioners.
3. The said suit was not contested by respondent No,1 whereas respondent No,2 filed contesting written statement. The learned trial Court because of the absence of the respondent No,1, proceeded ex parte. Respondent No,2 while filing the written statement, averred that no agreement was executed between the parties neither any receipt was issued nor the amount was received and in fact it all has been managed by defendant No,1 who is real first cousin of the other respondents. Lastly it was averred in the written statement by respondent No,2 that in fact the petitioners got signatures on the blank different papers and the agreement to sell are in fact result of fraud and fabrication.
4. Initially, the petitioners filed a suit for specific performance against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 but after some time, respondents Nos.3 to 41 were impleaded on their application wherein the respondents Nos.3 to 41 claimed that they are bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice of the suit-land. The learned trial Court, out of the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as fourteen issues including issues Nos.4-A and 13-A and fix the case for evidence of the petitioners. The petitioners despite availing many opportunities could not produce the evidence but finally himself appeared in the witness box as P.W.1. His statement was recorded partly and the case was adjourned for cross-examination but thereafter the petitioners could not appear and the learned trial Court closed the evidence of the petitioners under Order XVII Rule 13, C.P.C. An appeal was filed wherein the learned appellate Court remanded the case while granting one opportunity to produce the evidence. The petitioners instead of availing the opportunity filed an application for amendment of the plaint but the learned trial Court again close the evidence of the petitioners in the light of the direction passed by the appellate Court. The said order was again challenged by way of appeal but the same was dismissed on 17-5-2005 and the revision of the said order was also dismissed by this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners again filed an application to produce the additional evidence on the ground that the petitioners be allowed to place on record the agreement to sell but the said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 27-11-2004. The revision of the same was withdrawn by the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is violative of principle of audi alteram partem as no opportunity of defending the suit was provided to the petitioners, although the petitioners had sufficient material and evidence to place on record. Next contended that as the agreement executed between the parties was admitted by respondent No,1 so there was no need to prove the same and further the possession has already been delivered to the petitioners which is sufficient to prove that the agreement was executed. The learned counsel also submitted that the respondents have admitted the signatures on the blank paper, therefore, in presence of this admission on behalf of respondent No,2, both the learned Courts below should have decided the case on merits instead of non-suiting the petitioners on technicalities. Reliance is placed on Jan Muhammad v. Mst. Hashmat Bibi through L.Rs, (2005 M LD 657), Madan Gopal and 4 others v. Maran Bepari and 3 others (PLD 1969 SC 617), Muzaffar Javed v. Haji Noor Bakhsh and others 2002 M LD 1474 and Mst. Baswa r Sultan v. Mst.
Adeeba Alvi 2002 SCM R 326.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
7. The long history of the case has already been discussed while giving the facts so there is no need to repeat the same. From the record, it is established that the petitioners miserably failed to prove the alleged agreement to sell executed in their favour. The petitioners despite availing sufficient opportunities to lead the evidence, could not produce even a single marginal witness of the said agreement to sell, although the requirement of the law to prove a document is at least two marginal A witnesses. In this case, the petitioner himself appeared in the witness box but thereafter run away and even did not come back for cross-examination, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly closed the evidence of the petitioners. It is pertinent to mention here that while remanding the case in appeal, another opportunity was given to the petitioners to produce the evidence but again he failed, so it is sufficient to believe that the petitioners miserably failed to prove the agreement to sell allegedly executed in his favour so there is no difficulty to hold that the agreement to sell claimed by the petitioners had no sanctity in the eyes of law. The learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court attended all the aspects and the material available on the record and finally concluded that the petitioner despite availing sufficient time failed to establish his claim by adducing even a single witness in support of his contention. The learned appellate Court being the 1st Court of appeal re-examined and re-appreciated all the material available on record and the contentions made by the petitioners and finally maintained the findings recorded by the learned trial Court while dismissing the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioners when confronted the legal requirement to prove a document or agreement to sell as required by Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the learned counsel could not advance any plausible explanation to it. The judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no nexus at all with the merits of this case. The learned counsel even otherwise miserably failed to point out any jurisdictional defect, legal infirmity, material irregularity, misreading and non-reading of evidence with the concurrent conclusion drawn by the learned Courts below while non-suiting the petitioners. It is B now well-settled proposition of law that the concurrent findings of facts based on evidence are not liable to be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.
Reliance is placed on Abdul Rahim and another v. Mst. Janatay Bibi and others (2000 SCM R 346), Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others (2000 SCM R 431) and Rana Abdul Rasheed v. Iqbal Hussain (2008 CLC 1). On the scope and maintainability of civil revision against concurrent findings of the learned Courts below in such-like cases, this Court is guided and enlightened by the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases reported as Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994 SC 291), Abdul Qayyum through legal heirs v. Mushk-e-Alam and another (2002 SCM R 798) and Abdul Mateen and others v. Mst. Mustakhia 2006 SCM R 50. It was held that "re- examination and re-appraisal of evidence was not permissible in revisional jurisdiction even if conclusion drawn by on question of fact was erroneous and that revisional power of the High Court was exercised for correcting an error committed by subordinate Courts, and that mere erroneous decision would not call for interference unless it was established that decision had been based on no evidence, inadmissible evidence or it was perverse so as to cause grave injustice".
8. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no force and is dismissed with no order as to costs.