CH. SHAHID SAEED, J. --- Through the instant civil revision, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narowal who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment and decree dated 22.05.2006 passed by learned Trial Court whereby the suit of the. petitioner was dismissed.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. The record highlights that the petitioner-plaintiff flied a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23.08.2001 (Exh.P1) alleging therein that one Labhu agreed to sell the land, fully described in the plaint, to the plaintiff against consideration of Rs. 200,0001-. It was also alleged in the plaint that the whole of the consideration amount was paid to Labhu who delivered the possession of the suit land. But after his death, his legal heirs are not inclined to transfer the suit property in the name of the petitioner. The suit was hotly contested. The arguments pro and contra were advanced and the learned Trial Court after framing of issues and recording of evidence proceeded to dismiss the suit vide judgment and decree dated 22.05.2006. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner filed appeal. When the appeal was pending adjudication before the learned lower Appellate Court, the petitioner filed application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. Which application was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 17.09.2008. The petitioner assailed the said order before this Court in Civil Revision No. 1283/2008 wherein pre-admission notice was issued, however, no stay order was granted. Afterwards, the civil revision was fixed for 09.02.2009. During the pendency of the civil revision before this Court, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the main appeal pending before him vide judgment and decree dated 28.01.2009.
4. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he informed the learned lower Appellate Court that the civil revision in High Court is fixed for 09.02.2009, therefore, the appeal be fixed thereafter but the learned lower Appellate Court did not pay heed to his words and decided the appeal on 28.01.2009 in a hasty manner, so infringed upon the rights of the petitioner. However, the law is very much clear in this regard that when there is no stay order , the Courts shall proceed with the matters in accordance with the law.
5. The other grievance of the petitioner is that he was not heard by the learned lower Appellate Court. However, the record speaks otherwise. The petitioner was granted countless opportunities to argue the matter but he failed to do sor So the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived.
6. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the possession of the land was given to him by the vendor Labhu in result of Exh.P1. But during his cross-examination, the petitioner-plaintiff himself has admLed that the land was given to him on five years lease in 1996.
7. After going through the record, it becomes crystal clear that the payment of consideration amount could not be proved by the plaintiff as there are no signatures of alleged vendor Labhu and Muhammad Munshi (who identified the vendor) where the receipt of payment is mentioned.
There is no corroboration in the statement of the petitioner-plaintiff and his pleadings. The agreement to sell dated 23.08.2001 (Exh.P-1) is shaky one as the executant/vendor namely Labhu was about 98 years old when the agreement to sell was allegedly entered into. It is clear from the record that Labhu died in the age of 100 years on 12:05.2003 after about two years of execution of Exh.P1. At the time of execution of Exh.P1, Labhu was about 98 years old, he was unable to see and also too feeble to walk. The petitioner has also pleaded that son of the alleged vendor namely Muhammad Shafi, DW-1 was present on the occasion when the payment was made but Muhammad Shafi has totally denied the receipt of payment as well as the agreement to sell. There are concurrent findings of law and fact against the petitioner. The judgments and decrees passed by learned lower Courts are well-reasoned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has badly failed to point out any. illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments and decrees calling for interference by this Court.
8. Resultantly, this civil revision has no substance, hence, dismissed.
Civil revision .