AMIN UD DIN KHAN, J.-This civil revision has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 7.3,2011 whereby the petitioner's appeal was dismissed against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, lst Class Chishtian dated 21.10.2010 through which the suit filed by respondent was decreed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent on 4.5.2009 filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner pleading therein that the bargain for the sale of 1 Kanal land fully described in the head note of the plaint was struck on 11.12.2008, the plaintiff paid Rs. 50,000/- in the presence of the witnesses and the petitioner-defendant got entered Roznamcha Waqiati No. 126 0n 11.12.2008 and also on the basis of Roznamcha got entered mutation No. 1905 on the same day, full amount of this agreement was Rs. 150,000/- whereas the remaining amount was to be received before the Tehsildar at the time of attestation of mutation. As per plaint, at the time of mutation the defendant escaped. Therefore, on his refusal this suit has been filed. The defendant appeared and filed written statement wherein he stated that he is illiterate person, only conversation with regard to the bargain was held between the parties but the defendant-petitioner was demanding Rs. 400,000/- whereas the plaintiff-respondent was agreed only for' the payment of Rs. 150,000/-, therefore, this conversation ended. Further states in paragraph 3 of the written statement that the plaintiff asked the defendant that his Fard Malkiat was required, therefore, they went to the Patwari where Patwari in connivance with the plaintiff got his thumb impressions on some papers asking the defendant that these are necessary for the issuance of Fard Malkiat, he had denied from any agreement. The learned Trial Court on the divergent pleadings of the parties framed issues. Both the parties produced evidence in favour of their respective pleadings and after the close of the trial after hearing the arguments learned a Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment the petitioner filed an appeal before Additional district Judge, Chishtian on 8.11.2010. This appeal was finally heard and decided by the Additional District Judge, Chishtian vide his judgment and decree dated 7.3.2011 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. The concurrent findings of both the Courts below are under challenge in this revision petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
4. In this civil revision, pre-admission notice was issued to the respondent on 5.4.2011. With the concurrence of the parties this case is being decided as a PAKA case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no written agreement-between the parties; that the thumb impressions of the petitioner were got by the Patwari in connivance with the plaintiff-respondent and that there are discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses with regard to the payment of the money. He further stated that the possession is with the petitioner- defendant; that the original record of Ex. P.l has not been produced; that the demand of the petitioner-defendant was Rs.400,000/- for the suit property whereas only Rs. 150,000/- were offered, therefore there was no agreement between the parties.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has pleaded in paragraph 3 of the plaint full details of the agreement and Ex. P.l Raptt was duly got entered by the defendant before the Patwari halqa which clearly shows the thumb impressions of the parties and the signatures of the witnesses. Further submits that in the written statement there is no specific denial from the agreement and there is an evasive denial which is to be presumed under the law as an admission. Further submits that Ex. P.l and Ex. P.2 were exhibited in the Court without objection from the defendant and when there was no agreement between the parties then why the defendant-petitioner went to the Patwari and got Fard Malkiat. Further submits that as claimed by the defendant-petitioner that he is an illiterate person, he is also wrong because in the cross-examination he admitted that he is thirty eyes of age and he is a commission Agent, he admitted that he has three wives he further admits that a criminal theft case is against him. He further admits that many civil cases are also against him. In further lines he admits that it is correct that against Muhammad din PW.2 an FIR under section 302 PPC with regard to the murder o^the cousin of the plaintiff was entered and this witness %as punished in that murder case. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent further submits that the points which were not pleaded, no evidence can be led or if led cannot be taken into consideration In the light of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in case reported as BINYAMEEN and 3 others versus Chaudhry HAKIM and another (1996 SCM R 336). He further submits that on the basis of oral agreement the suit for specific performance is competent. Further submits that for the documents exhibited, the other party cannot afterwards take objection with regard to their proof. Further submits that the concurrent findings recorded by the both the Courts below cannot be interfered by this Court in this revision petition.
6A. I have seen the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner remained unable to show misreading, non- reading or jurisdictional defect in the findings recorded by both the Courts below. The contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are not substantiated by the evidence produced by the defendant -petitioner. The contentions of learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent that when, as per version of the petitioner, the bargain was not finalized and there was no agreement between the parties, then there was no necessity for the defendant- petitioner to go to the Patwari to get Fard Malkiat and affix thumb impressions on the papers. The petitioner as per his own version is a commission agent and he is involved in many criminal and Civil cases.
Therefore, it is strange as to how he affixed the thumb impressions on the papers when there was no bargain or agreement between him and the respondent. I have not seen any misreading or non-reading of evidence in the findings of both the Courts below. I see no reason to exercise jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner/defendant in the existence of the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below.
7. In the light of what has been discussed above, this Civil revision is dismissed.