' The facts leading to this revision briefly arc that on 19-3-1983 Nasrullah respondent No,1 filed a suit for Specific Performance of Contract against Inayat Hussain petitioner. In the alternative he prayed for the recovery of Rupees one lac, i.e, the earnest money Rs,70,000 and Rs,30,000 as damages. The suit was decreed ex parte against the petitioner on 16-5-1983. The respondents filed execution petition claiming the alternative relief, i.e, recovery of Rs,1,08,531 only from the petitioner. The petitioner filed application under section 12(2), C.P.C. For setting aside the decree and order dated 22-11-1984. This application was rejected on 25-3-1987. The petitioner's case is that during the execution proceedings, the parties compromised vide deed Annexure 'B' and the petitioner paid Rs,70,000 vide receipt Annexure-`A'. So the petitioner filed application under section 47, Cr.P.C. For the adjustment of the decree and release of his property already attached during the execution proceedings. This application was resisted. The trial Court framed following issues:-- ' ISSUES:
(1) "Whether there was any valid adjustment on 23.7.1988 out of the Court in regard to the decree dated 22-114984? If so, its effect ? OPA.
(2) Relief."
' The parties led evidence. The trial Court dismissed the application on 18-2-1990. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala on 18-7-1990, hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner; that the reasons given by the trial Court are neither sound nor cogent; that the genuineness of documents Annexures-A & B' was subjudice in the Civil Court, therefore, the Executing Court could not have declared these documents to be false and forged and that the evidence produced by the petitioner is more convincing as compared to the evidence of the respondents.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. The question as to whether or not compromise deed (Annexure 'B') and receipt (Annexure 'A') were/are genuine, is a question of fact. Both the Courts below have concurrently found these documents to be fake and forged. The execution proceedings were pending in the Court at the time of the execution of compromise deed Annexure `B' and the receipt Annexure 'A'. The petitioner could easily deposit the amount agreed between the parties in the Court but he has not done so. The Courts below were quite competent to believe/disbelieve the evidence produced by the parties. Since the genuineness of the documents Annexures 'B & A' were in dispute in the execution proceedings, therefore, the pendency of another suit between the parties with regard to these documents could not deter the Executing Court from giving decision on the evidence produced before it with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of documents Annexures `B & A'. I do not see any illegality, material irregularity in the impugned orders.
' The submissions made by the learned counsel are devoid of force and substance.
' Pursuant to the above discussion, there being no merit, the revision is dismissed in limine.