' ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---Through the instant revision petition, the petitioner has called in question the judgment and decree dated 26-10-2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge-V, D.I. Khan vide which his appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28-2-2011 of learned Civil Judge, Kulachi, District D.I.Khan was dismissed.
2. Precise facts leading to the instant revision petition are that the petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents/ defendants for declaration, prohibitory mandatory injunction and specific performance of contract. The suit way contested by defendants Nos.2, 5, 6 and 7 by submitting their written statement. The learned trial Court framed six issues including the relief from the divergent pleadings of the parties. The parties produced their respective evidence as they wished to adduce. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, learned Civil Judge, Kulachi, D.I. Khan dismissed the suit of the petitioner/ plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 28-2-2011.
3. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 28-2-2011, the petitioner/ plaintiff preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge-V, D.I.Khan vide judgment and decree dated 26-10-2011, hence the instant revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that agreement to sell was executed and proved by producing petition writer, stamp vendor, marginal witnesses but has been ignored. It was vehemently contended that out of three vendors Mst. Rashida Bibi and legal heirs of Ashraf deceased vendor, to the extent of defendants Nos.1, 3 and 4 admitted the claim of plaintiff and recorded their statement in Court on 10-5-2010 through attorney but has not been considered by the Courts below, without any justification. He argued that to the extent of concession by respondents, at least the Courts below were required to pass decree in favour of petitioner. He argued that admittedly, petitioner is in possession of the suit property, since then. He added that sale-deed was executed due to the reason mentioned in its contents, that no mutation could be attested due to embargo on its transfer. He contended that the impugned judgments suffer from illegality, misreading and non-reading of evidence, hence liable to be reversed.
5. As against that, learned counsel for the respondents argued that suit was hopelessly time- barred. He contended that alleged agreement to sell has not been proved through tangible evidence and evidence produced is full of contradictions and rightly disbelieved by the Courts below. He contended that sale consideration has not been proved which is vital ingredient of sale and as such the agreement to sell cannot be based for grant of decree, which has been rightly dismissed by the Courts below.
6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their valuable assistance.
7. Perusal of the record reveals that agreement to sell dated 28-10-1996 was executed in lieu of sale consideration of Rs.35,680 vide which Mst. Rashida Bibi widow, Mst. Allah Wasai daughter of Shahbaz and Shehzad son of Mir Baz allegedly sold the property in favour of petitioner. The statement of Hidayatullah son of Muhammad Ashraf was recorded in the trial Court on 10-5-2010, who happens to be the attorney of Mst. Rashida Bibi and Ashraf defendants Nos.1 and 3: He was also attorney for defendant No.4 namely Hamidullah, who has admitted the claim of petitioner/plaintiff and deposed that he has got no objection if the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in his favour. The Courts below have not considered this statement on the ground of failure of the petitioner to prove the execution of agreement and the payment of sale consideration. The appellate Court has added to the findings of trial Court to this effect that in case of cognovit, there is no need of decree to be passed in favour of the plaintiff.
8. Apart from partial admission of respondents the other respondents contested the suit. The petitioner/plaintiff produced stamp vendor as P.W.4. He appeared as P.W.5 and examined Muhammad Alam as P.W.6, who has supported the version of the plaintiff and also possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Haji Ashraf, who happens to be one of the defendants, submitted cognovit, deposed as P.W.7 that his father Shehzad has sold the property in favour of petitioner and has received the sale consideration. Muhammad Rafiq was examined as P.W.8, marginal witness of the agreement to sell deed, who has admitted his signature on the sale-deed and Muhammad Khan, the other marginal witness was also examined, who has admitted his signature on the said deed. Though the marginal witnesses and other two witnesses including Ashraf, who is one of the affectees has deposed in favour of execution of document, but the sale consideration has not been proved. In the year 1996, payment of Rs.35,680 was allegedly made, but no receipt to this effect has been executed. The reason for non-attestation of mutation or registered deed was mentioned in the agreement to sell deed that due to land reforms, mutations could not be attested but the plaintiff remained silent for considerable long period and file the suit in the year 2010, which is beyond the period of limitation. Without the proof of money exchange hands, agreement to sell cannot be relied upon, as the sale B consideration plays pivotal role towards the completion of sale. The impugned sale has been allegedly made through unregistered document for which tangible evidence is required but to this effect, no evidence has been produced.,
9. So far as the cognovit on behalf of defendants. Nos.1, 3 and 4 is concerned, it is admitted before the Court by the attorney for the defendants. The contesting defendants have not cross-examined the statement nor questioned the same or the authority of the attorney to file cognovit or depose in favour of the plaintiff and to this effect, the findings of the courts below are not in accordance with law and modified, for the obvious reason that if the claim of the petitioner, despite vacuums and lacunae in the execution and proof of the agreement to sell, is admitted by the other side, to that extent decree ought to have been granted in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. Even the respondents/defendants, who have admitted the claim of the plaintiff, have not come forward, so far as the plea of any lacunae in the admission made on their behalf by their attorney Hidayatullah is concerned. Issues are normally framed when a material proposition of facts and law is claimed by one party and denied by the other. In this case, no issue exists between the plaintiff and those who have admitted the claim. Under Order XVIII, Rule 1, C.P.C, plaintiff has the right to begin with evidence unless defendants admit the facts alleged by the plaintiff. In case of admission of the defendant, there is no need to adduce evidence against those who have admitted the claim of the plaintiff. For ready reference, Rule 1 of Order XVIII, C.P.C. Is reproduced below for ready reference:- "Right to begin... The plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged by the defendant the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, in which case the defendant has the right to begin."
' Order XII, Rule 6, C.P.C. Empowers the Court to grant a decree in favour of plaintiff at any stage where admission of fact has been made by the defendant either in pleadings or otherwise. For convenience, Rule 6'of Order XII, C.P.C. Is reproduced below:-- "Judgment on admission...Any party may, at any stage of a suit, where admissions of fact have been made, either in the pleadings, or otherwise, apply to the Court for such judgment or order as upon such admissions he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties; and the Court may upon such application make such order, or give such judgment, as the Court may think just."
' Even otherwise, the facts admitted need not be proved as provided by Article 113 of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984 which is reproduced below:-- "Facts admitted need not be proved... No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule or pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions."
10. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is partially allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees are modified only to the extent that a decree to the extent of defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4, who have filed congovit in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, is granted in favour of petitioner/plaintiff whereas the remaining judgments and decrees are kept intact and the petition is dismissed to that extent. No order as to costs.