' On 17-12-1986 Mushtaq Ahmad plaintiff filed suit for the specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10-1-1982 against Muhammad Ikram-ulHaq and Mst. Amena Siddiqua in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sahiwal. Subsequently Jameel Ahmad respondent No,3 was impleaded as defendant. It was averred in the suit that the disputed shop owned by Muhammad Ikram-ulHaq was sold by his Mukhtar-e-Aam Mst. Amena Siddiqua for Rs,24,000 to the plaintiff vide agreement to sell dated 10- 1-1982. The plaintiff paid Rs,6,000 as earnest money and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed. The suit was resisted. It was denied that Mst. Amena Siddiqua was Mukhtar-e-Aam of Muhammad Ikram-ul-Haq. The execution of agreement to sell by Mst. Amena Siddiqua as attorney of Muhammad Ikram-ul-Haq in favour of Mushtaq Ahmad plaintiff/petitioner was also denied. The plea of the defendants was that not only the suit was barred by time but the agreement to sell was forged and without any authority as well. The trial Court framed six issues. The plaintiff/petitioner appeared as P.W.
5. He produced Zahoor Hussain PW 1, Muhammad Akram PW 2, Muhammad Siddiq PW 3 and Muhammad Ramzan PW 4. He tendered affidavit Ex.P.1, application of Mst. Amena Siddiqua P.2, agreement to sell P.3 and copy of Jamabandi Ex.P.4. He also produced photostat copy of power of attorney executed by Muhammad Ikram-ul-Haq in favour of Mst. Amena Siddiqua deceased respondent as Mark `A'. In rebuttal Muhammad Ikram-ul-Haq defendant appeared as D.W.
2. He produced Abdul Haq Nasir P.W. 1 and Dr. Ata-ur-Rehman D.W.
3. The defendants tendered documents Ex.D.1 to D.3. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 15-11-1989.
The appeal filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against this judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge Sahiwal on 8-7-1990. Hence this Revision.
2. Before me the learned counsel for petitioner has challenged the findings of the Courts below on Issues Nos.2 and 3 which are as under:- ' Issue No,2: Whether the defendant No,2 was attorney of defendant No,1? OPP.
' Issue No,3: If issue No,2 is proved in the affirmative, then whether defendant No,2 being attorney of defendant No,1 entered into an agreement dated 10-14982 with the present plaintiff? OPP.
' He argued that the agreement to sell Ex.P.3 having been legally proved by the evidence of the scribe and of the marginal witnesses, the onus shifted to the defendants/respondents to prove that the document Ex.P.3 i,e. Agreement to sell was a forged document which they have hopelessly failed to discharge. He further argued that the power of attorney Mark 'A was wrongly excluded on the ground of its non-registration whereas under the law the power of attorney need not be registered and that power of attorney Mark 'A' duly attested by the Notary Public was admissible in the evidence.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I do not agree with him. The crucial questions for consideration and determination are as to whether or not Mst. Amena Siddiqua was an attorney for Muhammad Ikram-ul-Haq and the alleged agreement to sell Ex.P.3 was a genuine document. These are almost questions of facts. The Courts below after having applied their conscious mind to the evidence and circumstances appearing in the case have concurrently found these facts against the plaintiff/petitioner. The Courts below were quite competent to believe or to disbelieve the evidence led by the parties. They have given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading of material evidence by them. On my independent assessm ent of evidence and circumstances appearing in the case, I do not see any reason to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below and the reasons given by them therefor. Although the plaintiff/petitioner had allegedly given Rs,6,000 as earnest money, yet he did not care to get the agreement to sell written on the stamp paper or by some petition-writer. The petitioner/plaintiff was occupying the disputed shop as tenant since 1971. It seems to me that document Ex.P.3 was falsely prepared to frustrate and prolong the possible application for his ejectment from the shop in dispute. Mst. Amena Siddiqua is a woman. The execution of agreement to sell has not been admitted by her, so the onus was on the plaintiff/petitioner to prove the execution of agreement to sell by her through reliable evidence and circumstances which he has not been able to do,
4. I do not see any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgments and decrees. The submissions made by the learned counsel are without force and substance.
5. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision application fails and is dismissed in limine.