' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 1-2-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Regular Second Appeal No, 76 of 1990 filed by the petitioner against the judgment/decree dated 23-4-1990 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore in Civil Appeal No, 144 of 1989 and Civil Appeal No, Nil of 1989, whereby he set aside the judgment and decree dated 1-7-1989, dismissing the respondent No,1's suit for specific performance, of the learned Civil Judge, Lahore in Civil Suit No, 64/1 of 1989, dismissing the same and maintaining the above judgment and decree.
2. The brief facts are that petitioner, who was allottee of the suit plot, entered into an agreement to sell suit land to respondent No,1 for a sum of Rs,1,35,000 out of which Rs,20,000 were paid in advance and the balance of Rs,1,15,000 was paid on 28-6-1985. Since the petitioner had not completed the above sale transaction, respondent No,1 filed above suit for specific performance against the petitioner. The above suit was resisted by the petitioner inasmuch as a written statement was filed. On the basis of pleadings as many as 8 issues were framed. The learned Trial Court after recording evidence and hearing the parties held that the petitioner had entered into the above sale agreement and had received the above amount of Rs,1,35,000 being the price of the plot but dismissed the suit on the ground that the same was premature for the reason that the petitioner had not acquired the ownership over the plot. Against the above judgment /decree, the petitioner as well as respondent No,1 filed above Civil Appeals which were disposed of by the above common judgment by the learned Additional District Judge. He concurred with the finding of the trial Court that the petitioner had received full sale consideration of the plot namely Rs,1,35,000.
However, he reversed the finding of the learned trial Court to the effect that suit was premature. He accordingly decreed the suit. Thereupon, the petitioner filed above Regular Second Appeal which also failed but during the arguments, respondent No,1 voluntarily agreed to pay further amount of Rs,1,15,000 to the petitioner which offer was not accepted by the petitioner but the learned Judge in Chambers incorporated the above respondent No,l's offer and disposed of the above appeal in the following terms: "Resultantly, I see no force in this appeal, the same is dismissed with the modification in the decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court to the effect that the suit is decreed on deposit of an amount of Rs,1,15,000 payable to the appellant in the trial Court within a period of two months.
However, out of this amount Rs,3,500 shall be paid to respondent No,2 in case the appellant fails to, make payment of the said amount which is due against him to the Society-respondent No,2 The parties are left to bear their own costs."
' The petitioner has, therefore, filed present petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of the above petition Sh. Muhammad Asadullah, learned ASC; appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that respondent No,1 had not approached the Court with clean hands inasmuch as he involved the petitioner in criminal cases and because of that the petitioner remained in police custody/Jail custody for over a month.
' The above contention is devoid of any force. If respondent No,1 had initiated any frivolous legal proceeding against the petitioner, he could have filed a proper proceeding against respondent No,l. But the same cannot be a ground for refusal of specific performance.
4. Then, it was urged by Sh. Asadullah that factually respondent No,1 had not paid the above balance amount of Rs,1,15,000 to the petitioner and in furtherance to his above submission he has referred to the documents at pages 112 and 113.
It will suffice to observe that there is concurrent finding of the two Courts on the above question of fact, inter alia, supported Exh. P-2 which is dated 28-6-1985.
' The above contention is devoid of any force. In any case the same cannot be reagitated before this Court. In our view respondent No,1 has voluntarily agreed to pay additional sum of Rs,1,15,000 though he was not bound to pay any additional amount unless the Court would have directed at the time of decreeing suit for specific performance.
5. The above petition has no merits. Leave is refused.