1. ' Applicant Jurio filed Civil Suit No, 28/87 against respondent Ali Nawaz for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 3-5-1978 in respect of 50 paisa share in survey number 29 Deh Safar Tunio, Taluka Warah. Rs, 5,000 were said to have been paid as earnest money, by the applicant to the respondent at the time of execution of the sale agreement dated 3-5-1978. The suit was contested by the respondent who challenged the same to be non-maintainable. He denied the sale agreement dated 3-5-1978. After recording evidence of parties on different issues, the trial Court on 19-8-1989 dismissed the suit after holding that the sale agreement in question was not executed by the respondent by signing it, as the respondent used to make thumb-impression on the documents and did not sign any document. In respect of possession, the trial Court took view that the same was with the applicant as hari. The suit was found to be maintainable.
2. ' Applicant filed Civil Appeal No, 107/89 which was dismissed on 17-6-1991 by IVth Additional District Judge, Larkana, who took view that execution of the sale agreement dated 3-5-1978 was not proved and so also the payment of consideration money. Hence this revision application.
3. ' In the face of concurrent findings by the Courts below in respect of the said agreement dated 3- 5-1978, Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Abbasi learned counsel for the applicant argued that dismissal of the appeal by IVth Additional District Judge was on grounds, other than the grounds on which the trial Court dismissed the suit. It was next argued that contradictions in the evidence about execution of sale agreement were natural because the agreement was executed on 3-5-1978 while the evidence of the witnesses was recorded on 22-4-1987. That Bisharat and Ashiq All had supported the agreement with minor contradictions. Learned counsel for the applicant said in conclusion that possession of the suit property was admittedly with the applicant.
4. ' In a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, the proof of such agreement is sine qua non for decreeing the suit. For proving the sale agreement the applicant examined himself Exh.89 and witnesses Bisharat Exh.90 and Ashiq Ali Exh.95. Applicant's evidence has been discussed by both the Courts below who found that the sale agreement was not proved. There does not appear to be misreading of the evidence. The trial Court compared admitted signatures of the respondent with the signature purporting to have been made by him on the disputed agreement Exh.89-A and found that the disputed signature was different. The appellate Court found contradictions in the evidence about payment of consideration money, about reaching office of the petition writer and about the time of reaching the office. The appellate Court after noting down various contradictions in the evidence of the applicant came to the conclusion that the applicant had failed to prove, execution of sale agreement dated 3-5-1978 and signature of the respondent on said agreement and receipt of consideration money. While arriving at such conclusion, the lower appellate Court does not appear to have committed material irregularity or to have omitted to read evidence on a point resulting in miscarriage of justice or to have misread the evidence or to have based its findings on no evidence or on inadmissible evidence.
5. ' In the case of Muhammad Zahir Khan and another v. Zamir Khan (1987 SCM R 1144), Muhammad Haleem v. Mst. Anayat Bibi (1988 SCM R 1977) the concurrent findings by the Courts below were not disturbed in revision applications, when the evidence was examined by those Courts. In case of Muhammad Irshad v. Muhammad Islam and others (1987 SCM R 115) the subordinate Courts had recorded their findings on the issues after considering all the material evidence with no instance of misreading of evidence and with no conclusion unsupportable by evidence and interference with such findings in revision application was declined.
6. ' Powers or this Court in dealing with a Revision Application under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code are well-defined. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mehmood Khan and another (PLD 1970 SC 139) observed that a revision under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code was meant primarily for correcting errors made by the subordinate Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction and not those which are made in their jurisdiction unless the discretion is found to have been exercised arbitrarily or fancifully. Said case was followed in the case of Kanwal Nain and others v. Fateh Khan and others (PLD 1983 SC 53) where it was e observed that ordinarily erroneous decisions of fact are not revisable except in case where the decision is based on no evidence or on inadmissible evidence or is so perverse that grave injustice would result therefrom.
7. ' In view of above discussion, no case is made out for interference with the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court in the impugned judgment. Consequently this revision application stands dismissed in limine.
3. This has become infructuous and it stands dismissed.