' MUHAMMAD AZIM KHAN AFRIDI, J.--- Muhammad. Khursheed and others hereinafter referred to as the petitioners have impugned in the instant revision, judgment and decree dated 6-5-2005, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Islamabad, vide which appeal of the petitioner against judgment and decree dated 31-3-2004, passed by learned Civil Judge Islamabad, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that Muhammad Zaman predecessor of the petitioners entered into an agreement to sell, in the year 1994, in respect of Plot No,558 with respondent Abdul Rehman for purchase of the same against a sale, consideration of Rs,195,000.
That the said respondent, in spite of repeated requests of the predecessor of the petitioners, failed to perform his part of contract and compelled the petitioners to seek declaration, permanent injunction and specific performance of contract, on the basis of agreement to sell dated 30-5-1994 by instituting a civil suit.
3. The learned trial Court, after recording evidence and hearing the contested parties, partially, decreed the suit. Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 31- 3-2004, appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge, Islamabad, which was heard and dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 6-5-2005 by the Additional District Judge, Islamabad, and hence the instant revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has ,argued that the predecessor of the petitioners was a valid purchaser of the said Plot No,558 allotted to respondent No,1 by the CDA in lieu of acquisition of land. That the respondent No,1 sold the same to the predecessor of the petitioners vide the sale agreement deed 30-5-1994, Exh.P.1, and as such the petitioners became entitled to claim the said plot and enforce the said sale agreement deed through the process of Court. That the said plot was illegally cancelled by the CDA Authorities though the Agrofarm illegally given to the said respondent in lieu of the said acquisition of his property was liable to cancellation.
5. I have heard ex parte arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
6. It is not disputed that the suit plot was allotted to respondent No,1 by CDA. After allotment of the same respondent No,1 entered into an agreement to sell with the predecessor of the petitioners but meanwhile the same was, rightly or wrongly, cancelled from his name by CDA. A contract, though valid and enforceable, becomes invalid when a party to such contract becomes incapable to perform his part, due to reasons beyond his governance, command or control. The overt act of CDA, i,e, cancellation of the plot allotted to respondent No,1, is undoubtedly an act beyond control C of respondent No,l. Thus the contract of sale, valid at the first instance, became void the moment it ceased to be enforceable. Needless to mention that a void contract would not be enforceable under the law and a suit for enforcement of a void contract would not be entertainable.
7. Revisional jurisdiction conferred by section 115 C.P.C., authorizes a Court exercising such jurisdiction to interfere, disrupt and up-set an order or judgment when a subordinate court exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law or fails to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or, while exercising jurisdiction so vested commits illegality or material irregularity.
8. In the case in hand, jurisdiction vested in the Court was neither exercised by the learned Appellate Court illegally nor with material irregularity and as such the same warrants no interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.
9. For the reasons spelled out above, the revision petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.