C.M. No, 1 of 2000 ' This application for dispensing with filing of certified copy of Annexure "G" to the C.R. Is allowed and disposed of.
C.M. No, 2 of 2000 ' For orders to be passed in the main case, no order need be passed in this C.M. Disposed of.
Main Case ' On 20-10-1991, the respondent filed a suit against the petitioners for specific performance of agreement to sell, dated 29-3-1989. According to the plaint, the petitioners had agreed to sell a suit plot to the respondent for a consideration of Rs,25,000 and he paid as an advance Rs,20,000 while the balance of Rs,5,000 was to be paid at .The time of completion of the sale by means of registered sale-deed, which was to be done upon conferment of proprietary rights upon the petitioner by means of a conveyance deed. According to the plaint, the possession was also delivered. Later, the petitioners did obtain the requisite conveyance deed but refused to transfer the suit plot to the respondent and consequently the suit was filed. In the written statement the case set up was that the suit has been filed in collusion with one Muhammad Siddique with whom the petitioners had a long litigation ending in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. I was also objected that the agreement is not specifically enforceable and is otherwise hit by section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. On merits, the execution of the agreement was' denied. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent vide a judgment and decree, dated 17-12-1996. A first appeal filed by the petitioners was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal who dismissed the same on 13-4-2000.
2. Learned counsel contends that agreement Exh.P-1 is not'. Specifically enforceable as according to the learned counsel, it was not signed by the respondent and as such it was only a proposal that had not ripened in the evidence. Relies upon the case of "Mst. Barkat Bibi and others v. Muhammad Rafique and others" (1990 SCM R 28). Also objects that the agreement was hit by the bar contained in section 19 of the said Act of 1912. Refers to the case of "Wajid Ali and 2 others v. Board of Revenue, Punjab and 2 others" (PLD 1982 Lah. 716). Further argues that the learned Appellate Court did not decide all the issues and as such the Appellate Judgment is violate of the provisions of Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C. Finally says that evidence on record has been misread by the learned Courts below.
3. Taking the last argument first, I have examined the record. The execution of the agreement was proved through production of Baqir P.W.1 who is a marginal witness. Abdul Hafeez Qureshi, scribe appeared as P.W.2 while the respondent No,3 appeared as P.W.3. Taking no chances, the matter was referred to an expert who compared the thumb-impressions of the petitioners on the agreement Exh. P-1 with his admitted thumb-impressions and concluded that they bore resemblance to his admitted thumb impressions. Apart from the fact that nothing was brought out in the cross-examination of the said marginal witness as well as the scribe, it may be stated here that it is now well-settled that unlike the science of comparison of handwriting, the science of comparison of thumb-impressions is perfect. The expert was examined as P.W.4. In support of his report, he has squarely answered all the questions in his cross-examination. There is thus no miss- reading or non-reading of evidence by the learned Courts below, while holding that the agreement was executed by the respondents. Coming to the argument heard on said case of Mst. Barkat Bibi etc., the same is also misconceived. In the said case, the document under consideration was an alleged promise to recovery the property. It was in fact unilateral proposal by the executant that he had purchased the land from somebody and he would recovery the same to that somebody, in case, he raises the price and pays the same to him. This offer of course was not accepted by that particular somebody to whom the land was offered to be reconvened and in this background, the apex Court concluded that this was only a proposal sans acceptance and as such not being covered by the definition of an agreement cannot be enforced.
4. So far as the argument based on section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab).
Act, 1912 is concerned, nothing turns on the same. It is specifically mentioned in the agreement itself that the sale would be completed only when the conveyance had been made in favor of the respondent by the Provincial Government and it is nobody's case that the enforcement of the agreement was sought prior to the said conveyance.
5. I have examined the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge. He has reconsidered each and every piece of evidence on record, and stated reasons for agreeing the various findings of the learned trial Court. In this view of the matter, simply because issue-wise findings have not been recorded it cannot be said all the points rose before the learned Additional District Judge hayed not been decided. No other point has been urged. The Civil Revision is dismissed in liming.