' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.---Through this civil revision, the petitioner prays that the impugned orders dated 13-1-2010 and 24-2-2010 may be set aside.
2. It is stated that the petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance on 23-5-2009 in which the respondent appeared on 15-6-2009 and got recorded his statement admitting the agreement to sell and also stated that he has no objection if the suit is decreed. In pursuance to the statement of respondent, the suit of the petitioner was decreed on 15-6-2009. It is stated that subsequently on 10-7-2009 the respondent filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. For setting aside of the decree dated 15-6-2009. It is stated that the petitioner appeared in person in the said application on 2-12-2009 and sought time to engage his counsel and the case was adjourned to 6-1-2010 and when the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared the same was adjourned on 8-1-2010 for filing written reply to the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. It is stated that on account of Elections of Lahore Bar Association, the counsel being office bearer of the Bar had requested for adjournment which was declined on 8-1-2010. In view of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to send a reference to District Judge for transfer of the case. It is stated that the said reference was sent to the District Judge which was also declined on 11-1-2010 and the case was fixed for 13-1-2010 before the same trial Court. It is stated that the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared before the Court but the learned trial Court without affording any further opportunity to the petitioner closed the right to file written reply of application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Vide order dated 13-1-2010. It is stated that subsequently appeal against the said order was filed by the petitioner and the same had also been dismissed on 17-2-2010 for non-prosecution.
Thereafter, restoration application was moved on the second day of 19-2-2010 on the ground that the petitioner could not appear on account of Chehlum of his close relative, as such the case be restored. It is stated that in spite of the same, the restoration application has also been dismissed on 24-2-2010.
3. It is inter alia contended that the learned trial Court, by not affording an opportunity to the petitioner to file written reply had not applied its judicial mind which is against the interest of justice as the valuable rights of the petitioner are involved and the law favours adjudication on merits.
Moreover, refusal of the Appellate Court to restore the appeal of the petitioner was also unjustified.
4. The respondent has appeared in person and has stated that he is owner of property No,190/3- W-05, a shop situated at Ameenpur Bazar, Faisalabad, on the basis of PTO No,221275 duly issued by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner Layllpur vide order dated 8-7-1960 and since then he is in its possession and that the petitioner through fraud and mis-representation prepared a fictitious and forged sale agreement dated 26-7-2008 and he never entered into any sale agreement with the petitioner nor have signed or thumb marked on the so-called agreement. It is further stated that the petitioner after breaking the locks illegally and unlawfully entered into the shop. It is further stated that as he has no issue, the petitioner wants to deprive him of the said shop. It is also stated that in order to humiliate him, the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sell. In view of the above, the respondent requests that this civil revision be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent and have also perused the impugned orders.
6. A suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 26-7-2008 was filed by the petitioner against the respondent. The same was decreed on 15-6-2009 by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore. The respondent filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. For setting aside of the said judgment and decree. On 6-1-2010, learned counsel for the petitioner had requested for adjournment for filing written reply to the said application and the case was adjourned to 8-1-2010 but on 8-1-2010, written reply was not filed and further request for adjournment had been made and thereafter learned counsel for the petitioner requested to send a reference to the District Judge for transfer of the case but the same was declined on 11-1-2010 and the case was fixed for 13-1-2010 before the learned trial Court and on 13-1-2010, neither learned counsel for the petitioner had appeared nor written reply had been filed, therefore the learned trial Court closed the right of the petitioner' to file written reply to the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Against the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17-2-2010. On 19-2-2010 the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the appeal was filed but the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide order dated 24-2-2010. Perusal of the order dated 24-2-2010 shows that on 17-2-2010, the Court called the case several times but none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the Court waited for the appearance of the petitioner till 3-35 p.m. And even at that time none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner, as such, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution and further the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the appeal on 19-2-2010 i,e, after two days of the dismissal of the appeal and it appeared that the petitioner was not interested in the prosecution of the appeal. The learned trial Court rightly closed the right of the petitioner to file written reply to the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. In view of the conduct of the petitioner and the learned Appellate Court rightly concurred with the findings of the learned trial Court.
7. The concurrent findings of facts were recorded by both the Courts below. Neither any legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel even during the arguments, nor illegal exercise of jurisdiction nor failure of exercise of jurisdiction by both the Courts below has been attributed.
8. It is settled law that concurrent findings of facts are not liable to be B interfered in the 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), Aziz Ullah Khan and others v. Gul Muhammad Khan (2000 SCM R 1647), Altaf Hussain v.
Abdul Hameed and Abdul Majeed through legal heirs and anther (2000 SCM R 314), Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani and 2 others (2000 SCM R 329), Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994 SC 291) and Muhammad Rashid Ahmed v. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 2002 SC 293).
6. In view of the above circumstances, the petition being devoid of any force, is dismissed in limine.