' Respondents filed a suit for Specific Performance seeking enforcement of an exchange agreement, dated 13-10-1985, against the petitioner; claiming that by virtue thereof petitioner had agreed to exchange his land with that of the respondents. This suit was contested by the petitioner who though admitted his signatures on the agreement but stated that these were procured by the plaintiffs through fraud and misrepresentation. Issues were framed: parties were put to trial and the learned Civil Judge, vide judgment and decree, dated 26-6-1988, allowed the suit holding valid execution of the agreement by the petitioner. Against the above, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner; which has been dismissed on 14-9-1989.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the Courts below have misread the evidence on receded. Respondents have failed to prove the valid execution of the document through two attesting witnesses as required under the provisions of Article 17 of the Quanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984. In respect of his first contention, he has referred to the statement of D.W. 2, whose name does appear as a witness on the document in question but without his signature. His testimony is that he was subsequently asked by the respondent No,1 to sign the document but he refused.
3. The learned appellate Court has considered the statement of D.W.2 and for cogent reasons has disbelieved him. The view taken is that he is an interesting witness because in his cross- examination, he had admitted to be a tenant under the petitioner and his son was also got bailed out by the petitioner, whereas, the petitioner has denied this fact in his cross-examination. This contradiction in the statements have weighed with the count in discarding the statement of D.W.2.
This is a matter of appreciation of the evidence. Thus, it is not a case where the statement of D.W.2 has been ignored.
4. As a matter of fact the petitioner has admitted his signature on the document in question (Exh.
P-1) and has set up a counter plea of fraud and misrepresentation that such signatures were procured for the purpose of obtain loan etc. But the petitioner has miserably failed to prove this fact. Both the Courts below have duly applied their mind in appreciating the evidence, to concurrently conclude against the petitioner.
5. As regards the application of Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 is concerned; suffice it to say that this has not been the plea of the petitioner throughout; neither it is a ground set out in the present revision. Moreover, the execution of the document by affixing of signatures have been admitted by the petitioner himself, not only in his written statement but while appearing as D.W.1, therefore, an admitted fact needs no proof as per Article 113 of the Order, 1984. As the petitioner has set up a counter plea of fraud, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to discharge the onus to establish on the record that the signatures were procured through fraud and misrepresentation, which, as per both the Courts below, he has failed to establish. From my own reading of the evidence, the petitioner has failed to prove fraud, etc. The petitioner is a Senior School Teacher and it is inconceivable that he would sign a document without reading the contents thereof.
5. Upshot of the above is that there is no merits in this revision, which is hereby dismissed.