1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 22nd May, 1983 whereby the RSA of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that the petitioner entered into an agreement with Fazal Karim respondent for the sale of agricultural land in dispute for a sum of Rs,36,000. He received Rs,18,000 as earnest money. The sale was to be completed after the petitioner had obtained proprietary rights for the said land from the Thal Development Authority. Later he received from the said respondent another sum of Rs,2,721 towards the consideration on 29th July, 1972. The balance which was yet to be paid was Rs,15,279. Then Fazal Karim respondent is stated to have transferred his rights under the agreement to Fateh Sher respondent. When the petitioner refused to comply with his part of the agreement, both the respondents jointly instituted a suit for the specific performance of the said agreement. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the Additional District Judge reversed the judgment holding that there was no bar to the parties entering into an agreement to sell which would take effect after the seller had obtained proprietary rights in the suit land. Accordingly decree for specific performance was granted in favour of the respondents. Thereafter the RSA of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present petition.
3. ' The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner before us was that Fazal Karim respondent had taken the balance amount from Fateh Sher respondent and that in this sense he should be taken to have abandoned his claim for specific performance of the agreement as not interested in the disputed land. And that so far as Fateh Sher respondent was concerned he was not party to the agreement for sale and therefore had no locus standi to file suit for specific performance of the said agreement. This argument had also been raised and had been attended to by learned Single Judge who correctly arrived at the conclusion that the mere fact that Fazal Karim respondent had chosen to transfer his rights in favour of Fateh Sher respondent did not imply that he had abandoned his claim. He had not only paid more than half of the consideration money to the petitioner but had also instituted the suit for specific performance alongwith the other respondent.
4. ' In the light of the above discussion no case is made out for interference in the impugned order.
5. The petition is accordingly dismissed.