CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.---Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Toba Tek Singh whereby the suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 22.01.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Toba Tek Singh whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was also dismissed:
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell regarding the land measuring 102-Kanals 06-Marlas comprising of Khewat No,14/13, Khatooni No,118, Square No,49, Killa Nos.6, 14 to 10/1, Square No,50, Killa Nos.1/1, 2/1, 3 to 5, 8 and 12 situated at Chak No,775/GB, Tehsil Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh. The petitioner/plaintiff states that one Noor Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of defendants Nos.4 to 10 has executed an oral agreement to sell regarding aforementioned suit property for consideration of Rs.340,000/- out of which Rs.100,000/- was paid to him as earnest money and possession of the land was also handed over to the petitioner. The respondents denied the execution of sale deed in favour of the petitioner then he filed the suit. The respondents/defendants appeared before the learned trial Court, filed contesting written statement and stated that their predecessor neither executed any agreement to sell with the petitioner/plaintiff nor received any consideration amount from him and denied all the facts narrated by the petitioners/ plaintiff in his plaint. From the divergent pleading of the parties learned trial Court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether predecessor-in-interest of defendants Nos.4 to 10 sold the suit property to the plaintiff in May, 1985 in consideration of Rs.3,40,000/- and received earnest amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, in presence of witnesses and his son? OPP
2. Whether delivery of possession was settled to be subject of payment of remaining consideration? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff was held liable to pay the official dues then take the possession? OPP
4. Whether predecessor-in-interest of the defendants Nos.4 to 10, then admitted to alienate the suit property to the plaintiff after getting P.Rs.? OPP
5. Whether after death of Noor Ahmad, defendants Nos.4 to 10, in January 1994, demanded for the remaining amount of consideration and the plaintiff accordingly paid the same and got possession of suit property? OPP
6. Whether the defendants before alienation of the suit property in favour of plaintiff demanded Rs.2,00,000/- which he refused to pay? OPP
7. Whether on the application of the plaintiff dated 15.06.2006, Revenue Officer on 08.10.2006, also found the claim of the plaintiff as is given in this suit as correct, if so, what is its effect on the suit?
OPP
8. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
9. Whether the plaintiff earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction and on the basis of that suit he forcibly got possession of the suit property? OPD
10. Whether the plaintiff earlier before DDOR Kamalia on 28.10.2006 described the specific date of agreement to sell dated 1984 whereas in the instant suit he has mentioned the year of agreement to sell as 1985 and this variation discards claim of plaintiff? OPD
11. Whether the plaintiff has concocted the story of agreement to sell? OPD
12. Whether the defendant is entitled for special cost? OPD
13. What should be the decree?"
' After recording the evidence of both the parties and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned Civil Judge, Toba Tek Singh vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2012 dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree before the learned District Judge, Toba Tek Singh who after hearing the learned counsel for the parties also dismissed the said appeal vide judgment and decree dated 22.01.2015. Hence, this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below have passed the impugned judgments and decrees which are arbitrary, fanciful, against the record, material facts and law; further submits that the impugned judgments and decrees are based on mis-reading and non-reading of the evidence; that the petitioner produced witnesses of oral agreement to sell but the Courts below did not appreciate the evidence produced by the petitioner/plaintiff.
4. Learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner/plaintiff did not mention the names of the witnesses and also has not mentioned the date of alleged oral agreement to sell in the plaint, as such, the petitioner/plaintiff has failed to prove his case according to his own pleadings; that both the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments and decrees and dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit, titled "Sardar All v. Riaz Ahmed etc." (Exh. D-7), for permanent injunction regarding the suit property which was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.02.2007. The petitioner again filed another suit titled "Sardar All v. Province of Punjab" (Exh. D-9) regarding the same suit property for specific performance of oral agreement to sell but the same was also dismissed on 04.10.2006 due to non-depositing of Court fee.
7. From the bare perusal of the plaint, it reveals that the petitioner/plaintiff has not mentioned the exact date of execution of oral agreement to sell and also has not mentioned the names of the witnesses in whose presence the oral agreement was executed and consideration was paid by him. Furthermore, the petitioner/plaintiff did not annex any affidavit of any witness of the said transaction along with his plaint, as such, the petitioner/plaintiff has failed to lay down the foundation of his case in the plaint and he is not authorized to produce any evidence or document which is not mentioned in the plaint. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a reported case as Muhammad Nawaz v. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan and others (2013 SCM R 1300), has held as under:- "9. A perusal of the plaint reveals that the appellant/plaintiff while asserting his claim regarding execution of alleged oral agreement in between the appellant and respondent neither mentioned the date of striking of the bargain nor the witnesses in whose presence the said oral agreement to sell was arrived at between the parties."
' Reliance on the same issue is also placed on the cases reported as Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others (2014 SCM R 914) and Messrs Essa Engineering Company (Pvt.) Ltd. And another v. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited and another (2014 SCM R 922).
Furthermore, the evidence produced by the petitioner/plaintiff is out of pleadings and it cannot be considered or discussed, same should be ignored while deciding the lis. Reliance is placed on the cases of Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others (2014 SCM R 914) and Zulfiqar and others v. Shahdat Khan (PLD 2007 SC 582).
8.Moreover, it is also an admitted fact that till today the proprietary rights C have not been given to Noor Muhammad, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/defendants Nos.4 to 10. The Provincial Government is the owner of the property in question, as such, the petitioner/plaintiff has badly failed to prove his case through cogent evidence. Both the Courts below have rightly passed the judgments and decrees dated 12.12.2012 and 22.01.2015 and dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff. Reliance is placed on the case of Commissioner Multan Division, Multan and others v. Muhammad Hussain and others (2015 SCM R 58), the relevant portion thereof is reproduced as under:- ' "Such agreement to sell being contractual was valid inter parties but the same could not be enforced until proprietary rights were conferred on the allottee by the State."
9. The concurrent findings of facts are against the petitioner which are not called for any interference by this Court in exercise of it's revisional jurisdiction in absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the cases of Malik Muhammad Hussain v. District Returning Officer and others (2008 SCM R 488) and Zulfiqar Ali v. Judge, Family Court and 7 others (2007 M LD 1710).
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments and decrees and also has not identified any jurisdictional defect.
11. In view of above, this civil revision is dismissed.