' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---Brief facts of the case are that Jalal Khan, respondent No,1 filed a suit for specific performance of oral agreement against the petitioners and others whereby it was contended in the Voint that the plaintiff purchased a piece of land measuring 3-Kanal, 17 Marla bearing Khasra No,54,Khata Khatuni No,50/355 situated in the revenue estate of Kharian, District Gujrat at the rate of Rs,18000 per marla. According to the contents of plaint, oral agreement was executed between the parties about 5-1/2 years before the filing of suit. Plaintiff further contends that defendants/petitioners received a total consideration of price of land Rs,1386000 and has handed over the vacant possession of the land where he first constructed a boundary wall and a store room. Plaintiff further contends that he also planted fruit trees and put earth for leveling the suit plot. Thereafter, one year before filing of suit, plaintiff started construction of ground floor with 250 sq.Yard with RRC construction compromising of 6 rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. And spent Rs,5,00,000 on the construction. On the other hand, petitioners/ defendants also filed a suit for permanent injunction to stop the construction meanwhile one Mubark Ahmed one of the petitioners/ defendants filed a suit for pre-emption and got stay order. Plaintiff further contends that petitioners/defendants deviated from the terms and conditions of agreement because of increase in price of land. When the plaintiffs/respondents asked the petitioner to execute sale deed in his favour, they refused, hence he filed suit for specific performance.
2. After filing of suit, learned trial Court issued summonses to the respondents and after the service of summonses, respondents Nos.2 to 13 filed their consenting written statement in favour of plaintiff/respondent whereas respondents Nos. 15, 16, 18 and 19 were proceeded against ex parte after making proclamation in the newspaper and only respondents Nos. 14, 17 and 20 contested the suit who filed their joint written statement. The defendants denied the transaction and also denied the receipt of any consideration price. They further stated that respondent No,1 r ,chased one kanal 11 marla from them out of Khasra Nos. 43, 46 and 50 vide registered Sale-deed bearing No,137, dated 20-10-1996 but he took over the possession of land in dispute forcibly regarding which suit for possession in pending adjudication.
3. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed.
' ISSUES
(1) Whether the defendants agreed to sell the suit-land to the plaintiff against consideration of Rs,1386000 received the whole consideration, transferred possession of the suit-land and promised to execute a deed in this respect on demand? OPP
(2) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(4) Whether the suit does not lie? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus standi to bring this suit? OPD
(6) Whether the instant suit is a counterblast and the same is based on mala fide? OPD
(7) Whether the suit is hit by the doctrine of res sub judice? OPD
(8) Whether the defendants are entitled to get special costs to the tune of Rs,25,000 OPD
(9) Relief.
4. Vide judgment and decree, dated 7-7-2004, learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Kharian decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiffs. The defendants/petitioners tiled appeal against the judgment and decree cased by the learnedd trial Court which was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 17-6-2006 passed by Mian Muhammad Shafi, learned Additional District Judge, Kharian, hence this civil revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are against the law and facts. He further contends that both the learned Courts below failed to exercise jurisdiction vested to them and both the learned Courts below erred in deciding the suit in favour of respondent No,1 on the basis of insufficient and inadmissible evidence because the document produced by respondent No,1 was neither admissible in evidence nor confronted nor proved in accordance with law. The impugned judgments and decrees are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence, hence Civil Revision be accepted and the impugned judgment and decree as well as judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Court be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently supported the impugned judgment and has prayed that Civil Revision be dismissed.
7. Arguments heard record perused.
8. Onus to prove issue No,1 was on the plaintiff which is a paramount issue about the receipt of consideration price and transfer of possession of suit-land to the plaintiff/respondent No,1 To prove this issue, plaintiff has produced documentary evidence Exh.P1 to Exh.17 and the version of the plaintiff was also proved by P.W.1. And P.W.3. P. Ws. Have categorically supported the version of plaintiff/respondent No,1 and has categorically affirmed that Jalal Khan purchased the suit-eland against a consideration of Rs,138600 which amount was paid in their presence. Examination of Exh.
P-16, which is order, dated 27-2-2002 further strengthens the contention of plaintiff that withdrawal of suit, amounts a estoppel against the defendants/petitioners, This was the suit for partition and possession which was withdrawn unconditionally so this issue was decided in favour of plaintiffs.
Onus to prove issues Nos. 2 to 8 was on the defendants which they failed to prove and all issues i.e, issue Nos.2 to 8 were decided in negative. Further after purchase of suit-land, respondent No,1 first of all constructed boundary wall around the suit land and also constructed room. Thereafter, respondent No,1 constructed a double strayed building in the knowledge of petitioner which itself establish the agreement between the parties and payment of consideration price to the petitioners because no one can allow a third person to occupy one's land and construct a house. In rebuttal, petitioners could not produce inspiring evidence, resultantly, civil revision fails. There is also a concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner so no interference is called for. Civil Revision is dismissed. No order as to costs.