' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11-3-1996 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in R.F.A. No,268 of 1994, filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 30-10-1994 of the learned Civil Judge, Kamalia, dismissing the petitioner's suit for declaration (Civil Suit No,212-1 of 1992), in the alternative for specific performance of the sale agreement and decreeing the respondents' suit for possession (Civil Suit No,537-1 of 1989), dismissing the same by maintaining the above dismissal judgment/decree.
2. The brief facts are that the respondents filed their suit in 1989 for the above relief; whereas the petitioner filed his suit in 1992 for the above decree. The aforesaid suits were contested by each other inasmuch as written statements were filed. The learned Civil Judge framed as many 13 issues in both the suits. Both the suits were heard together and decided by the above common judgment by the learned Civil Judge in the aforesaid terms. He concluded that the petitioner failed to prove the factum that the respondents agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs,1,05,000. It was further concluded that the petitioner also failed to prove the factum of payment of Rs,5,000 or Rs,1,00,000 towards the sale consideration. It was also found that the petitioner was in permissive possession.
3. Against the above judgment, two Regular First Appeals were filed by the petitioner, Regular First Appeal relating to the dismissal of the petitioner's suit has been disposed of through the impugned judgment; whereas according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the other Regular First Appeal remains pending. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
4. In support of the above petition Ch. Abdul Shakoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, has firstly contended that since the other Regular First Appeal is still pending before the High Court, this case may be remanded to the High Court. Secondly, he contended that there was sufficient material to prove the factum that the respondents agreed to sell the suit property to the petitioner.
' On the other hand, Mr. Zafar Iqbal Ch. Learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents, has urged that the petitioner had not pointed out to the High Court at the time of hearing of the above F.R.A. That any other R.F.A. Was pending and, therefore, it will not be just and proper to remand the case now particularly when the matter stands finally concluded. His further submission was that in support of the alleged sale transaction the petitioner failed to prove any sale agreement and the payment of consideration and hence the concurrent finding of the two Courts cannot be disturbed.
5. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be entertained as it was for the petitioner to have requested the High Court to dispose of both the F.R.As. Together. As regards the second submission, it seems that the suit property is owned jointly by respondents Nos.1 and 2, son and mother respectively. It appears that the petitioner filed his suit for the above relief after nearly three years from the filing of the suit by the respondents, though the petitioner alleged that he had purchased the suit property. He had not produced any sale agreement. The petitioner had solely relied upon the alleged receipt for the payment of Rs,1,05,000 allegedly signed by respondent No,2 alone. He attempted to prove the alleged receipt by producing two witnesses but the Courts below have rightly disbelieved them as they are not witnesses to the same. We have compared the respondent No,2's signatures on the above receipt (at page 54 of the paper book) with the admitted signatures on the power of attorney (at page 52 of the paper book). Apparently, the same are not signed by the same person inasmuch as in the power of attorney, the word Parven has been written with one "e", whereas on the receipt, two "e" have been used. There are other striking dissimilarities. The concurrent finding of the two Courts below seems to be in consonance with the evidence on record. Leave is refused.