' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.---The predecessor of the respondents Rehmat Ali filed a suit for specific performance on basis of an agreement, dated 14-10-1975 qua the disputed land, pleading that the appellant has received consideration in the sum of Rs,40,000 and the suit be decreed as prayed for. The appellant/defendant filed the written statement. Of the divergent pleadings for the parties, issues were framed; they were put to trial and thereafter the suit was decreed as prayed for.
Aggrieved thereof, the appellant filed an appeal which was accepted and the suit of the respondents was dismissed. Aggrieved thereof a revision petition was filed in this Court, which remanded the proceedings to the District Judge, Okara on the statement of the parties for decision afresh against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Thereafter the District Judge, Okara partly dismissed the appeal by holding that consideration was not proved and directed that subject to payment of Rs,40,000 the suit be decreed.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff produced six witnesses but there is material discrepancy in the evidence of these witnesses and their testimony is not in harmony and in consonance with each other. P.W.1 and P.W.2 do advert to the fact that the payment was made before them, P.W.3 and P.W.5 state that partial payment was made before them in the sum of Rs,25,000, P.W.4. Does not affirm that the payment was made, whoever, the plaintiff, P.W.6., categorically states that the payment was made, thus there is no coherence in the stance of the witnesses and suit warranted dismissal. To further argument his submissions, the learned counsel stated that P.W.6 was a highly interested person and therefore, his statement carries no weight, he also stated that the plaintiff and the concerned Patwari transacted the whole episode in order to deprive the appellant of his property. He thereafter, adverted to the fact that the trial Court and the lower appellate Court did not peruse the material evidence produced by the parties in a correct and careful manner and committed glaring discrepancies in this regard, therefore, the judgments are not tenable in law. To fortify his contention, the learned counsel relied on the following precedents:-- ' Muhammad Yaqoob and others v. Naseer Hussain and others (PLD 1995 Lahore 395), Mst. Safyya and another v. Muhammad Rafique and 6 others (PLD 1993 SC 62), Malik Haji and others v. Abdul Razzaq and others (2001 MLD 1925), Mst. Ferozi v. Muhammad Aslam and another (2001 MLD 401), Manzoor Hussain and 3 others v. Muhammad Siddique (2000 CLC 623), Habib Khan v. Mst. Taj Bibi and others (1973 SCMR 227), Asa Ram and another v. Sukha Singh (AIR 1921 Lahore 336),Ahmad Bakhsh v. Mst. Zeb Illahi (PLD 1981 BJ 60), Muhammad Yaqub v. Muhammad Nasrullah Khan and others (PLD 1986 SC 497) and Abdul Hameed v. Shariq Mehmood and 7 others (2001 MLD 25).
' The learned counsel for the respondents controverted the assertions of the learned counsel for the appellant and stated that the parameters as set out in section 100, C.P.C. (second appeal) are limited and the same is maintainable only when decision made is contrary to law or usage having force of law or has failed to determine any material issue of law or there is substantial error or defect in the procedure to be followed by the Court, which may have caused defect on the merits of the case. According to the learned counsel on this benchmark and parameters set, the appeal in question is not maintainable, he adverted to the evidence produced by the parties and specifically referred to the witnesses produced by the plaintiff, P. W.1. To P.W.6, who, according to the learned counsel, were in consonance and harmony and unison that the agreement in question was executed before them and they affirmed it in categorical terms, there is incontrovertible documentary evidence in the shape of agreement to sell, Exh.P1, which was proved by Khushi Muhammad. Appellant affixed his thumb-impressions on it which were exhibited as P1/1, P.W/2 also affirmed it. The learned counsel relied upon the following precedents:-- Mir Abdullah v. Muhammad Ali and 2 others (1977 SCMR 280), Mst. Murrian and others v. Suleman and 4 others (PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 63) and Muhammad Zaman Khan v. Sher Afzal Khan and 8 others (PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 138).
3. Heard.
4. It is clear from the record that there is preponderance of evidence produced by the plaintiff (P.W.1 to P.W.6 and Exh.P.1), to establish that the disputed agreement was executed inter se the parties. It is further affirmed from the facts that P.W.1, who is a Notary Public, deposed that the agreement to sell Exh.P.1 was produced before him, he attested the same as Notary Public, Muhammad Zaman Lumberdar identified the parties and the agreement was registered in his register at Serial No,638, appellant Khushi Muhammad affixed his thumb-impressions Exh.P1/1 in his presence, he withstood the test of cross-examination very well. Likewise the other witnesses produced by the plaintiff in unison accepted the execution of the agreement, however, there is material discrepancy in their testimony qua the payment of consideration. The question now arises, can this discrepancy nullify the effect of the evidence given by these witnesses? The answer is in negative because there is collateral evidence available on record to substantiate that the agreement was duly executed, the solitary statement of P.W.1. Notary Public affirming the transaction is enough to prove it, because the A witness is independent, although the same was proved in accordance with legal requirements of law by other witnesses. Nothing substantial could be extorted from them in the cross-examination, therefore, the agreement stands proved. The plaintiff has adequately discharged the onus. Contrarily the evidence produced by the defendant (D.W.1. And D.W.2) have not much to say. There testimony is incoherent and full of material discrepancies. It, rightly therefore, has not been relied upon concurrently by both the Courts below.
The benchmark to decide the civil matters is preponderance of evidence and on this touchstone the plaintiff has adequately discharged the onus. Even otherwise parameters of second appeal are limited and confined only to procedural deviation, non-answering of any material issue or decision being contrary to law. On this touchstone also the appeal is not maintainable. Lastly under the Contract Act it is incumbent and binding upon the parties to adhere to their obligations in law and equity. As the agreement stands proved, the ambiguity if any qua consideration of disputed land has already been cured by the respondents, as they have placed on record the receipt of payment of Rs,40,000, duly deposited by them pursuant to the directions of District Judge, Okara, therefore, this appeal warrants no interference.
' As far as the precedents referred to by the learned counsel, they are distinguishable on facts and therefore, inapplicable to the present proposition.
' Resultantly this appeal has no merits and is dismissed.