' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.--- Through this revision petition petitioner has challenged the judgment & decree dated 27.01.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Pakpattan Sharif whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and judgment & decree dated 18.05.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Pakpattan whereby suit for specific performance filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that suit for specific performance was filed on 8.2.2010 by the plaintiff- respondent. Petitioner-defendant filed written statement on 26.04.2010 wherein he denied from the agreements to sell and specifically pleaded that same are forged and fictitious. Prayed for registration of a criminal case by sending a complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C. To the concerned 2Police Station. Thereafter on 25.6.2010 an application was moved by the petitioner/defendant for comparison of thumb impression of the petitioner with the thumb impression alleged by the plaintiff of the defendant-petitioner on the agreements. On 01.11.2010 the parties got recorded their statement in the presence of their counsel and agreed that the thumb impression of the defendant be got compared with the thumb impression upon the agreements and if the Expert reports that the thumb impressions upon the agreements are of the defendant, the defendant will raise no objection upon the report and suit will be decreed and in case the Expert reports that thumb impressions are not of the defendant, the plaintiff agreed that he will not raise the objection on dismissal of his suit. The statement was recorded and the matter was sent to the Finger Print Bureau, Punjab Lahore, who reported on 9.12.2010 that the thumb impressions marked as D1, D2 & D3 on the agreement to sell dated 12.10.2006 and D4, D5 and D6 on the agreement dated 27.10.2006 are identical with the left thumb impression of Hashmat Ali on his sample paper. Thereupon defendant-petitioner filed an application on 25.01.2011 for cancellation of the report of the Finger Print Expert filed in the Court on 8.01.2011 and for cancellation of settlement dated 1.11.2010. Reply was filed. Vide judgment & decree dated 18.05.2011 learned Trial Court while dismissing the application decreed the suit in accordance with the settlement of the parties dated 1.11.2010. Appeal was preferred, which was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that on the basis of forged and fictitious documents the suit for specific performance was filed and the learned Trial Court was bound under the law to record evidence and decide the matter on the basis of evidence. When questioned to the learned counsel that why the defendant-petitioner asked the Court to adopt a specific procedure vide statement dated 1.11.2010 to decide the suit on the basis of report of the Finger Print Expert learned counsel states that the petitioner was having no knowledge about the proceedings as well as his statement recorded on 1.11.2010 and it was his counsel who was responsible for the same and even his statement was also recorded by the Court without his consent. I am afraid the case of the petitioner is that plaintiff has forged the documents, the Court has recorded his statement without his knowledge and consent, his lawyer who was representing him before the Court has also acted against his rights and without his instructions. It seems that every person except the petitioner is wrong. This behavior of the petitioner shows that he has adopted the shortcut for dismissal of the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff-respondent when he failed in his design, now he is maligning all concerned including the Trial Court and even his lawyer.
4. I have gone through the contents of the application moved by the petitioner on 25.01.2011 for cancellation of settlement dated 1.11.2010. The case argued today before this Court is not pleaded in that application. When a person takes summersault and has not come to the Court with clean hands, he is absolutely not entitled to use of any discretion from this Court in his favour.
5. When a party adopts a procedure for the decision of the lis and presses the same before the Court for adopting the same, if that procedure is not against the law and the same is adopted and the results of the same are against the party pressing the said procedure, then the said party cannot be allowed to back out from the commitment before the Court when the party itself has pressed for adopting a specific procedure. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this civil revision, therefore, same stands dismissed in limine. Civil revision .