' Through the filing of the present revision petition, the petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree, dated 1-7-1989, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, accepted the appeal, filed by respondent No,1, thereby reversing the judgment and decree, dated 17-4-1989, passed by the learned Civil Judge, whereby the suit for specific performance of contract of sale, filed by the petitioner, was decreed.
2. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present revision petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance against respondent No,1 and the predecessorin-interest of respondents Nos. 2 to 7 (hereinafter referred to the contesting respondents) on 23-12-1985, thereby contending that the contesting respondents entered into an agreement for the sale of a plot of land measuring 10 Marlas (elaborately described in the plaint) for a consideration of Rs,12,000, out of which Rs,10,000 were paid to the contesting respondents in presence of the witnesses whereas the rest of the amount of Rs,2,000 was payable in June, 1985. It has been alleged in the plaint that due to part performance of the said agreement, the possession of the suit land was delivered to the petitioner and simultaneously he was assured that the sale-deed will be executed. The plaint then narrates that when the possession of the petitioner over the plot of land was threatened, he filed the aforesaid suit, which was resisted by the contesting respondents by way of filing the written statement, thereby controverting the contents of the plaint and maintaining that they have sold the plot in question to some other person for a consideration of Rs,20,000 and, therefore, the suit, inter alia, is not maintainable.
3. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as 8 issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, proceeded to decree the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 17-4-1989. However, on appeal being preferred by respondent No,1, the learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree, dated 1-7-1989, while accepting the appeal reversed the findings of the learned Civil Judge, hence, the present revision petition.
4. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has been established through the production of cogent evidence that a contract of sale did exist between the parties for a consideration of Rs,12,000 and the learned lower Appellate Court while reversing the well-reasoned judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge, has not only missed the evidence on record, but findings of the Appellate Court also suffer from non-reading of evidence, which vitiate the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents has submitted that as a matter of fact no agreement to sell was entered into between the parties, that the plot in question was owned by respondent No,1 and Ghulam Nabi, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.2 to 7 and that they have sold this piece of land to Muhammad Riaz and Sher Muhammad (who were arrayed as defendants Nos.8 and 9 in the suit), therefore, it was alleged that the contesting respondents have no nexus with the plot in question. The learned counsel while supporting the judgment of the First Appellate Court has contended that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge suffer from legal infirmities.
5. From the pleadings of the parties and the arguments raised by the learned counsel, the first question which requires determination of this Court is that whether any agreement to sell was really executed or entered into between the parties and pursuant thereto any consideration was received by the vendors. Issue No,1 is precisely on the same subject-matter. Adverting to the contents of the plaint the petitioner, in the title of the suit, has specifically mentioned that the suit has been filed for specific performance of an oral agreement for a consideration of Rs,12,000. Not only this but it was also prayed that a decree as prayed for in the title of the suit favouring the plaintiff may be granted. So, the case made out by the petitioner in the plaint is that there was an oral agreement regarding the sale of plot in question for a consideration of Rs,12,000 which averments were, of course, controverted and denied by the contesting respondents through the filing of the written statement. In this perspective and in order to prove the said crucial issue, the petitioner reduced P.W.1, Munir Ahmad, who while stating other things has stated, even in the examination-in-chief, that regarding this transaction, a writing was made, which was written by him, Islam-ud-Din and Missri were the marginal witnesses and this writing was in respect of this plot. It would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant portion of the statement of P.W.1, which reads as under:--- {{URDU TEXT}} ' He has further stated that at the time of execution of the agreement to sell no payment was made to the vendors, but a sum of Rs,10,000 was paid by the plaintiff on 4th day after the execution of the agreement. However, in cross-examination this witness deposed contrary to the statement in the examination-in-chief, that the transaction was oral. Similarly P.W.2, namely, Missri, also stated that the transaction was struck is his presence, which was in writing and he thumb-marked the same. In cross-examination he reiterated that the transaction was reduced into writing, which was handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner in his statement also deposed that the agreement was reduced into writing on a plane piece of paper and the writing was made by Muhammad Ahmad, P.W.1.
6. Admittedly, no agreement to sell was produced by the petitioner, which even according to the statement of P.W.2 was handed over to the petitioner. The resume of the evidence of the petitioner would establish that all the witnesses are unanimous on the subject that, in fact, an agreement to sell was entered into and same was reduced into writing. All the witnesses produced by the petitioner, completely counter the contents of the plaint, wherein the petitioner himself prayed for the specific performance of an oral agreement to sell. At no point of time the petitioner has made an application for the amendment of the plaint. It is discernible from the record that no agreement to sell, which according to witnesses of the petitioner was reduced into writing, was produced before any of the Courts below either in the shape of plane piece of paper or on a stamp paper. As mentioned above, there is a complete conflict between the contents of the plaint and the evidence of the petitioner, more so when the alleged agreement to sell has not been brought on record, I am of the considered view that either there was no agreement to sell or if at all that was in writing, the petitioner has intentionally withheld to produce the same for the reasons best known to him. On account of these reasons, inter alia, the findings of the learned Appellate Court on Issue No,1 are just, proper and no exception can be taken. On the same set of evidence the findings arrived at by the learned Civil Judge were rightly reversed by the learned First Appellate Court.
7. From the perusal of the evidence of the petitioner, it is discernible that there are many contradictions inter se the witnesses and the petitioner failed to prove through the production of cogent evidence either about the execution of the agreement to sell or his entitlement for passing the decree for specific performance of the agreement. Another factor, which has been noticed by the learned Appellate Court and is correct that the petitioner failed to disclose the exact name of Ghulam Nabi and parentage of respondent No,1, who according to him are the owners of the property. The conclusion is that when the petitioner is not in the knowledge of the exact name of Ghulam Nabi and parentage of respondent No,1, the assertion of the petitioner for the alleged purchase of the suit land cannot be believed.
8. For the above reasons and conclusions, the findings arrived at by the learned lower Appellate Court on the basis of evidence on record, do not call for any interference which are in accordance with law. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly reversed the findings of the learned Civil Judge, which were against the evidence on record. Net result is that the revision petition has no merits, thus, the same is dismissed while maintaining the judgment and decree, dated 1-7-1989, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, with no order as to costs.