AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J: Through this civil revision petitioners-plaintiffs have challenged the judgment & decree dated 04.04.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal whereby appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment & decree dated 18.12.2000 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Khanewal whereby suit for specific performance filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs was dismissed.
2. It is one of the oldest cases pertaining to the year 2006. On 11.6.2015, when the case was fixed for hearing learned counsel for the petitioners sent written request for adjournment on the ground that he is busy in his necessary domestic work. Though it was not a ground for adjournment but in the interest of justice the case was adjourned for today after hearing learned counsels for the respondents to some extent. Today in the earlier part of the day, when other cases were being heard, learned counsel for the petitioners approached the Court Associate and after taking information disappeared, therefore, again complete arguments of learned counsel for the respondents were heard and case was kept in waiting for the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners but in the last hour learned counsel for the petitioners appeared and requested for adjournment. He was informed that no adjournment can be granted and the case will be decided on the basis of perusal of record and arguments of learned counsel for the respondents. He was asked to advance arguments but he showed his inability, therefore, there is no option left with the Court but to decide the case on the basis of perusal of record and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.02.1990 plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 06.03.1987. Another suit was filed by respondent No. 5 for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.1.1987. Both the agreements were denied in the written statement filed by the original owners i.e. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4. Suits were consolidated. All the parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence. Vide consolidated judgment & decrees dated 18.12.2000 the suit filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners was dismissed and that of Mst.
Akram Khatoon was decreed. Record shows that two appeals were filed; one by Allah Ditta the present petitioner and the other was filed by Muhammad Khan etc. Both the appeals were dismissed. Through this civil revision petitioners have challenged the judgment & decree of the learned first appellate court whereby their appeal against grant of decree of Mst. Akram Khatoon was dismissed and have not challenged the decree of dismissal of their appeal whereby their suit was dismissed. The number of the appeal filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs whereby they challenged the judgment & decree of dismissal of their suit was 41/13 of 2006 whereas the appeal against the judgment & decree whereby suit of Mst. Akram Khatoon was decreed, was 42/13 of 2006 and only decree sheet of appeal No. 42/13 of 2006 has been appended with this civil revision, therefore, it is clear that plaintiffs-petitioners have not challenged the decree of dismissal of their suit for specific performance and appeal, therefore, they have no right to challenge the decree of suit for specific performance granted in favour of Mst. Akram Khatoon when their suit for specific performance of suit land was dismissed and their appeal was also dismissed and they have not challenged the concurrent dismissal of their suit, they have not appended the decree sheet of the learned first appellate court dismissing their appeal No. 41/13 of 2006. Even otherwise, there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below. Petitioners produced only Inayat, the marginal witness as PW-1. The other marginal witness of agreement (Exh.P1) namely Maqbool Haider has not been produced and one of the plaintiffs appeared as PW-2. No other witness to prove the agreement to sell (Exh.P.1) has been produced neither the scribe nor stamp vendor of the agreement to sell in their favour have been produced.
4. In these circumstances, when there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below against the petitioners and there is a defect that they have not challenged the decree of dismissal of their suit, therefore, this civil revision stands dismissed.