' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J-Leave is sought against the judgment dated 12-9-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore through which revision petition filed by the petitioner against the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner was admittedly in occupation of the property as tenant of the respondent who filed an ejectment petition against him which was accepted by the Rent Controller on 15-1-1986.
The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 25-9- 1986. Writ Petition No,4720 of 1986 filed by him was also dismissed by the Lahore High Court on 5-3- 1990 against which C.P. No,400 of 1990 was too dismissed by this Court through judgment dated 16- 5-1990.
3. The petitioner in the ejectment petition denied existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent and had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale through which allegedly the respondent agreed to sell the property to him. It was on the basis of this agreement of sale that relationship was denied. The said suit for specific performance was dismissed by the trial Court through judgment dated 21-7-1988. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 11-2-1989 by the First Appellate Court and C.R. No,272 of 1989 was too dismissed by the Lahore High Court on 21-3-1989 against which C.P. No,602 of 1989 was also dismissed by this Court through judgment dated 16-5-1990 alongwith the said civil petition which had arisen from the ejectment proceedings.
4. The respondent filed execution petition and he was delivered possession by the Executing Court on 22-6-1990. Thereafter, the petitioner took the law in his own hands and forcibly dispossessed the respondent, therefore, the respondent filed a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession which according to learned counsel for the petitioner has also been decreed and execution proceedings to execute the said decree are pending before the Executing Court,
5. The petitioner filed the suit from which this petition has arisen alleging that for a consideration of Rs,1,00,000 out of which an amount of Rs,26,000 had been received by the respondent as earnest money, the respondent through oral agreement, agreed to sell the property to him and that he was in possession of the same in pursuance thereof. It was, dismissed by the trial Court after considering evidence of the parties through judgment dated 21-3-1998 on which date the abovementioned suit filed by the respondent under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act was also decreed. The appeal filed by the petitioner and revision petition arising from the said suit filed by the respondent under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge through judgment dated 15-3-2001. The petitioner filed. C.R. No,1086 of 2001 before the High Court which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 12-9-2001 against which leave is. Sought.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Courts below have not based their findings on the evidence produced in this case to prove execution of oral agreement of sale and receipt of an amount of Rs,26,000 as earnest money whereas the same is based on the findings that it was improbable that after having obtained possession on 22-6-1990 after contesting the litigation with the petitioner twice up to the level of this Court within three days, the respondent would agree to sell the property to him that too through oral agreement of sale, therefore, it is a case of non- consideration of evidence on its own merits.
7. We are afraid, the argument is not 'only devoid of legal or moral force but is plainly unsound too.
As argued, the Courts below have not ignored any material piece of evidence produced by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the Courts appreciated the said evidence and it was rejected as the same could not be believed for the reason that after contesting litigation for such a long time and getting possession of the property, it was improbable that the respondent would enter into an agreement of sale. The oral evidence of the petitioner has been disbelieved on cogent reasons that in such situation, no man of ordinary prudence would agree to sell the property to the petitioner and the petitioner as a man of ordinary prudence would not under mere oral agreement of sale pay an amount of Rs,26,000, for in these circumstances, it could not be imagined that the parties had cordial relations and they were enjoying confidence of each other that the transaction of sale could be struck through oral agreement of sale and payment made without any document.
8. The evidence has been appreciated and considered in accordance with the principles of appraisal of evidence laid down by the superior Courts.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince us that the findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from any illegality such as misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence, therefore, we find no force in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.