1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 30-1-1983 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in R. S. A. No, 283 of 1982.
2. ' The suit of respondent No, 1 for specific performance of the agreement dated 23-1-1976 with regard to the sale of the shop, filed against Muhammad Bashir, respondent No, 2, was decreed by the learned trial Court. The case of the petitioners was that petitioner No, 1 had, in fact, entered into an agreement for purchase of the shop earlier viz, on 21-11.1975, that in any case he was a bona fide purchaser of the property for consideration without notice that he had paid Rs, 20,000 before the Sub-Registrar and the sale-deed had been executed in his favour on 19-2-1976 and the possession of the shop had also been obtained. It was further submitted that in the above circumstances, a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 23-1-76 entered into between Muhammad Sharif, respondent No, 1 and Muhammad Bashir, respondent No, 2, could not be granted.
3. ' The contentions of the petitioners were not accepted on the findings that the document evidencing the agreement alleged to have been made on 21-11-1975 was a forgery and could not be relied upon and that the sale dated 19-2-1976 made in their favour was with notice of the earlier agreement with respondent No,
1. The suit for specific performance instituted by respondent No, 1 was accordingly decreed. The appeal against the said decree before the Additional District Judge and the second appeal before the High Court having failed; hence this petition for leave to appeal in this Court.
4. ' The main contentions urged before us by Sh. Masood Akhtar, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners, are that the finding of the Courts below, that the agreement, dated 21-11-1975 between petitioner No, 1 and respondent No, 2 was a forgery, is not tenable and, in any case, the petitioners having entered into the possession of the property and a sale-deed having also been executed in their favour the suit filed by respondent No, 1 for specific performance simplicitor without seeking a relief either for the cancellation of the registered sale-deed, dated 19-12-1976 made by the vendor in their favour or for a decree for possessioa by way of a consequential relief, was misconceived.
5. We do not find any force in these submissions. The finding, that the alleged agreement dated 21-11- 1975 was a forgery; is a finding of fact, with which finding this Court will not normally interfere and there are no special features in this case to induce us to depart from the normal rule.
6. ' As for the objection regarding the form of the suit being defective the same, too, is equally without merit. The respondent No, 1 not having been a party to the sale-deed, dated 19-2-1976 was not obliged to ask for its cancellation. The other plea to the effect that he should have also sought a decree for possession by way of a consequential relief is equally misconceived, because in his suit for specific performance the respondent No, 1 as the plaintiff was not only asking for a decree to be passed for the specific performance the agreement to sell entered into by the defendant with him, but also for being put in possession of the property in dispute.
7. ' This petition, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, rejected.