SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- The petitioners in this petition for special leave to appeal are the successors-fn-interest of one Muhammad Ismail who on 20-4-1973 entered into an agreement with respondent to purchase 151 Kanals and 16 Marlas of agricultural land situate in village Marja of Lahore District for sum of Rs.35,000. He paid Rs.6,000 by way of earnest money to the respondent.
Subsequently, according to the petitioners, on 15-3-1974 he paid another sum of Rs.25,000 to the respondent. The sale was to be completed within one year. On 25-3-1975 the petitioners filed a suit for the specific performance of the said agreement on the allegation that the respondent had failed to abide by it. The trial Court dismissed the suit and its judgment and decree were affirmed by the additional District Judge and the High Court.
2. The main contest between the parties revolves around the alleged payment of Rs.25,000 by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners to the respondent on 15-3-1974. The learned trial Court as well as the learned Additional District Judge concurrently found that the said payment had not been proved and the receipt produced by the petitioners at the trial in this regard was a forged one. They further held that as the petitioners were not prepared to pay the full price of the land to the respondent, he was justified in not transferring the land to them. They also observed that as the petitioners had not come to the Court with clean hands they were not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance. In second appeal the High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent finding of the subordinate Courts with regard to the alleged payment of Rs.25,000 by Ch. Muhammad Ismail to the respondent.
3. So far as the question of non-payment of Rs.25,000 is concerned, no case for interference with the concurrent finding of the Courts below has been made out. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that after the Courts had held that the said payment had not been proved, they ought not to have declined to direct the respondent to specifically perform the agreement but instead they should have decreed the suit on payment of the rest of the consideration including the disputed amount of Rs.25,000. We find little merit in this contention. Under the agreement the period for the completion of the sale was one year. The suit was brought about a year after the expiry of the said period, It remained pending for more than nine years in the trial Court. At no time during this long period the petitioners offered to pay the full price for the land in dispute, instead they insisted on paying less than half the agreed price. They even went to the extent of forging a receipt to avoid payment of the full price. In the circumstances, the Courts were justified in refusing the prayer of the petitioners for the specific performance of the agreement. It is not a fit case where this Court should come to the rescue of the petitioners who are themselves to blame for the falling through of the agreement. The petition for leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed.