' The petitioners instituted a suit against Nawabzada Khalid Kh deceased-defendant seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale respect of a certain agricultural land measuring 8 Kanals at Rs,20,000, which deceased-defendant had been allegedly paid but he did not execute a register sale-deed or got attested any mutation in favour of the plaintiffs for the suit lan Nawabzada Khalid Khan (who is now dead and represented by the legal heir resisted the suit by denying the case of the plaintiffs in toto. The learned tried Judge after settling all such issues arising between the parties out of pleadings recorded evidence pro and contra, but did not agree with t correctness of the suit of the petitioners and dismissed it vide judgment an decree, dated 27- 4-1992 which was subsequently affirmed in appeal before t District Judge, Mardan who dismissed appeal of the plaintiffs on 2-12-199 Hence this civil revision petition under section 115, C.P.C., by the petitioners.
2. I have heard the learned Advocates on both sides. The petitioners b their claim for purchase of the suit land on the basis of certain receipts cop Exh.P.W.2/1 to Exh.P.W.2/8 allegedly executed by a manager of the decease defendant Nawabzada Khalid Khan. The plaintiffs in their evidence have frank admitted that they have neither entered into any agreement for sale of the su land with the defendant nor paid him any consideration money. Even in the said receipts there is an endorsement that the transaction, if any shall be subjects the approval of the deceased- defendant. The Revenue Record on the count indicates that the petitioners are in possession of the land as tenants and a so for ejectment and produce of the suit land was also filed against the plaintiff's b the said Nawabzada Khalid Khan before the Revenue Court. The learned Coup below in this background of the evidence rightly dismissed the suit. It could n be stated that the Courts below have acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegal or, with material irregularity.
3. It may also be mentioned here that petitioners filed civil miscellanea Petition No,609 under Order 23, C.P.C. For permission to withdraw from the present suit lodged before the Trial Court in order to bring a fresh suit about ownership of the petitioners in respect of an area of 32 Kanals of land comprised in Khasra No,3395/1. The learned counsel while arguing this case stated that his clients have become owners of the property through allotment of the resumed land under Martial Law Regulation, but could not support his arguments through any document showing that the land in dispute had been resumed and allotted in the names of the petitioners by the competent Authority. He has rather made out a new case, as initially the plaintiffs instituted a suit and claimed ownership over an area of 8 Kanals of land through purchase. The request for withdrawal of the suit by the petitioners under Order 23, Rule 2, C.P.C. Is thus, declined. At the end this civil revision petition is dismissed with costs alongwith civil miscellaneous application.