' SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the order dated 1-8-1996 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.R. No, 2082-D of 1996.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Muhammad Rafique petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 10-7-1982 allegedly executed by Fazal Din, the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents in respect of the suit land. The respondents contested the suit. After recording evidence of the parties on the issues framed on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court by judgment and decree dated 12-1-1992 dismissed the suit. The learned ,trial Court observed that the petitioner had failed to prove the agreement of sale, payment of consideration and the execution of agreement to sell dated 10-7-1982.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal in the District Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 26-6-1996. The learned Additional District Judge observed that the stamp vendor had not verified the purchase of stamp paper and that the evidence of the petitioner was inconsistent with regard to the payment. Settlement of transaction and execution of the sale agreement. The omission on the part of Muhammad Sharif, marginal witness, to state that the petitioner had paid the amount of consideration in his presence was also considered to be a serious circumstance.
4. The petitioner then filed a revision in the Lahore High Court which was also dismissed by the impugned order. Discussing the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner the learned High Court observed that:-- "....There were atleast two striking features of the case which have not satisfactorily been explained by the petitioner. According to agreement dated 10-7-1982 (Exh. P.2), the whole of the sale price was paid to the deceased vendor Fazal Din. The question is that if the sale price is paid and the possession is also claimed to have been transferred then why not the completion of the transaction either by execution and registration of the sale-deed or by attestation of the mutation.
Why a mere agreement to sell? Learned counsel has frankly conceded that there is no indication in the evidence as to why the parties were content with a mere agreement and did not go for the sale transaction itself. The other striking feature is that one the agreement had been executed on 10-7- 1982, as claimed, what was the necessity to have the same attested from a notary public on 1-8- 1982. The agreement is complete once it is signed by the parties and the marginal witnesses. Again there is no explanation on the record as to why on the 22nd day of the execution of the agreement.
The petitioner claims that Fazal Din deceased accompanied him to the notary public and admitted the execution of the agreement. Normally this is, not done. This exceptional feature of the case has not been explained by the petitioner-plaintiff. This aspect assumes further importance inasmuch as it is the case of the respondents defendants that Fazal Din had in fact died on 25-7-1982 and his date of death was interpolated and changed in the relevant record to 5-8-1982. Both the Courts below have learned in favour of holding that the date of death of deceased Fazal Din is 25-7-1982 since according to them the forgery or interpretation is apparent to the naked eye. If Fazal Din died on 25-7-1982 he could not have gone to notary public on 5-8-1982 as claimed by the petitioner.
Besides, even the notary public in his statement as P.W.2 has stated that he did not personally know Fazal Din nor identified him."
' Hence, this petition.
5. It is, inter alia, contended that there has been a gross-misreading of evidence by the Courts below and undue importance was attached to getting the agreement of sale attested by a notary public instead of registration and further that the application moved by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence had been rejected on irrelevant consideration.
6. The learned Appellate Court had dismissed the application for permission to lead additional evidence on the ground that it was an after though to bring on record copy of the statement of Fazal Din dated 16-10-1985 before A.C. Toba Tek Singh, copy of the application of Feroz Din and Muhammad Irshad dated 5-7-1986 before A.C. Gojra, copy of the application by Fazal din for registration of case for abduction of Mst. Sharifan Bibi, copy of the statement of Chairman and Chowkidar before A.C. Gojra dated 6-7-1985, copy of application of the appellant dated 3-7-1980 and copy of service certificate dated 13-11-1994. The learned Court was of the view that the petitioner had ample opportunity to produce the aforementioned documents as the same were available with him, and if any of the said documents was not available he could have produced the same by summoning the record at the time of recording of his evidence, but he failed to do so at the proper time. The learned High Court was also of the view that there was no occasion to permit the petitioner to produce those documents after the parties had closed their evidence in the trial Court. The learned High Court further observed that the documents sought to be produced were either previous statements of the witnesses or copies of the applications made to various functionaries by the parties/witnesses which could only be used for the purpose of confrontation and were not substantive evidence by themselves.
7. We have perused the evidence led by the parties before the learned Trial Court and-do- not find any misreading or non-consideration of any material. There is a proper discussion of all the points raised on behalf of the petitioner and his suit, appeal and revision were dismissed through well- reasoned orders calling for no interference at this stage. In consequence. The petition is dismissed.
Leave to .