SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order, dated 29-5-1985 of the Lahore High Court whereby it declined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction with the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Khushab in a suit for specific performance of contract.
2. The property in dispute is a piece of land measuring 1.75 Kanals situate in Khushab City. It was owned by Sardar Muhammad Jahangir Khan. By an agreement, dated 16-2-1961 the petitioner took the said land on lease for a period of 20 years for the construction of a cinema house. According to the petitioner it was agreed between the parties that if he so wished he would be entitled to purchase the said land within the period of lease at the rate of Rs.400 per Marla. This agreement was reiterated on subsequent occasions in the receipts which the petitioner obtained when paying lease money to Sardar Muhammad Jahangir Khan. Sardar Muhammad Jahangir Khan died on 3-1- 1981. After his death the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of 'the agreement to sell against his legal representatives, who are respondents before us. Apart from taking other pleas, the respondents denied the existence of any agreement to sell between the petitioner and Sardar Muhammad Jahangir Khan. After considering the evidence led by the parties the trial Court affirmed 9xistence of the agreement and decreed the suit. The respondents preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge found that the documents upon which the petitioner had relied to prove the agreement to sell were either fabricated or had interpolations in them. After holding that the agreement had not been established he accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.
3. From the decision of the learned Additional District Judge the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the High Court. With his grounds of revision he did not file copies of the documents upon which he was basing his case. However, at the time of the arguments his counsel wanted to place them on the record. A learned Single Judge who heard the revision petition refused to receive them on the ground that they ought to have been filed alongwith the grounds of revision.
The learned Judge then examined the judgments of the Additional District Judge and the trial Court and dismissed the revision petition. The petitioner has now come to this Court to seek leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was through an error of his clerk that the necessary documents were not filed alongwith the revision petition. The learned Single Judge should not have declined to receive them when they were placed before him during the hearing of the revision petition. It is further contended that the learned Additional District Judge had held the documents to be forget. Or tampered with merely on visual inspection. This was thus a fit case where the trial Court's record should have been summoned before disposing of the revision petition.
5. Learned counsel has placed on record photostat copies of the documents in question. After examining these documents we think that the contentions of the petitioner require further consideration. We would` accordingly grant him leave to appeal. He should deposit security in the sum of Rs.2,500. The appeal may be made ready on the present record with permission to the parties to add such documents as they deem necessary. As regards the property in dispute status quo should continue to be maintained subject to the petitioner furnishing security for mesne profits to the satisfaction of the trial Court.