AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.--- This Civil revision is directed against the judgment dated 23.11.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyarkhan, whereby he accepted the appeal and decreed the suit.
2. This Civil revision was admitted to regular hearing on 26.2.1994. It being an admitted case, no one from the side of the petitioners or respondents appeared before this Court today. This case was fixed for hearing today, therefore, I have no choice except to decide it on merits after scrutiny of record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 31.7.1938 with regard to the suit property fully described in the head note of the plaint. The suit was filed on 28.4.1988. The defendants appeared in the Court and they pleaded that suit for specific performance was time barred though they admitted that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property, but pleaded that they are as tenant. They denied from the execution of the agreement and receipt of earnest money by their predecessors . The learned Trial Court on 22.3.1983 framed various issues.
4. Both the parties produced their respective evidence. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 15.4.1989 dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs/respondents aggrieved by the said judgment and decree filed an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Rahimyarkhan. The Additional District Judge Rahimyarkhan vide his judgment and decree dated 23.11.1993 accepted the appeal and decreed the suit.
5. I have gone through the file. The plaintiffs have produced original agreement to sell as Ex.P.2 and receipt Ex.P-1. According to which the predecessor of defendants Imam Din agreed to sell 20 Jarabe (10 acres) on 31.7,1938 while in respect of Ihata the executed agreement to sell dated 3.8.1938. The agreement to sell was witnessed by Fatu son of Lakha and Shah Muhammad marginal witness. They are no more in the world. Even Hansi Ram the scribe is not stated to be alive or available. The documents have been described by the learned Trial Court that it has come to the Court form proper custody. It is in evidence of PW.3 one of the plaintiffs that this document was lying in the "bandi" with their mother, naturally mother being the eldest member in the family must be in custody of it and it has produced in the Court by the plaintiffs, it is in the natural course of events and I am also convinced that this document has come from proper custody. The document is more than 30 years old. It has been exhibited into evidence without any objection from the defendant side. It has to be read in evidence a being a genuine document. There is no proper rebuttal on the part of the defendant's side about this document. On the basis of available record, I see no force or reason to interfere in the well reasoned findings of the learned first appellate Court.
No jurisdictional defect or misreading or non-reading of the first appellate Court has been highlighted in grounds of Civil revision or even found by this Court.
For what has been discussed above, I see no force in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
Civil revision .