Through this revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. Sher Muhammad petitioner has challenged the judgement dated 22-9-2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chiniot whereby the appeal filed by Mst. Asmat Bibi was allowed with costs and the suit filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Sher Muhammad. petitioner filed suit for specific performance of contract against Mst. Asmat Bibi in respect of land measuring 3-1/4 Marlas situate in Mauza Lalian Tehsil Chiniot with the assertion that Mst. Asmat Bibi entered into an agreement to sell the suit property for a total consideration of Rs,1,16,000 out of the said amount, Rs,83,000 has been received by Mst. Asmaf Bibi, receipt was issued by Muhammad Imran, brother of Mst. Asmat Bibi anti the remaining amount of Rs,33,000 was to be paid on 25-1-1992 the date fixed for registration of sale-deed. With these assertions the plaintiff prayed for issuance of a decree. The suit was contested by the defendant Mst. Asmat Bibi wherein she denied the fact of having entered into an agreement with plaintiff Sher Muhamamd rather asserted the alleged agreement to be a forged document being a Pardah Nasheeen lady and state that two shops were rented out to Sher Muhammad at the monthly rental of Rs,150. She also averred that in order to usurp the property, the suit was filed by Sher Muhammad.
3. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and both the parties were directed to adduce evidence. The learned Trial court after conclusion of the trial, decreed the suit filed by Sher Muhammad vide judgment, and decree dated 21-4-1994. Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree, Mst.Asmat filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 10-12-1996. This order of the learned Additional District Judge was assailed through Civil Revision No,3127 of 1996 which was allowed vide judgment dated 1-2-2000 and the case was remanded to the learned Additional District Judge with the direction that the Finger Print Expert shall be summoned by the Court, both the parties shall be given full opportunity to cross-examine him and thereafter their arguments shall be heard and the appeal be decided afresh within four months of the receipt of that order. After remand the matter was taken up by the learned lower Appellate Court. Accordingly, Hamid-ud-Din-Qazi, Deputy Superintendent of Police. Incharge Finger Expert Bureau was summoned as C.W.1 and both the parties were afforded opportunity to cross-examine him. However, the learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by Sher Muhammad, plaintiff vide judgment dated 22-9-2000, hence this revision petition.
4. In support of this revision petition, learned counsel submits that the agreement to sell, mark. "A" was duly proved by the plaintiff/petitioner by producing the scribe, marginal witnesses and the person who attested the said agreement to sell and the execution of the document was further proved from the fact of delivery of possession. On Court question, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that some payments were received by Imran brother of Mst. Asmat Bibi on her behalf but he was never produced by either of the party nor he was summoned by the Court. It has also been admitted by learned counsel that the agreement to sell was never got exhibited but was marked as A.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submits that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands inasmuch as it was never disclosed in the plaint that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as a tenant and as such a person having approached the Court with unclean hands is not entitled to any relief what to talk of discretionary relief. Further submits that according to the plaint, case of the revision petitioner is that Mst. Asmat Bibi executed 2 agreements to sell in his favour. The first agreement dated 1-12-1991 and the second was 11-12-1991 but both these agreements were neither tendered in evidence nor got exhibited. Adds that the first agreement dated 1-12-1991 was never signed by Mst. Asmat nor her name does appear on that allegedly it has been signed by Imran brother of Mst. Asmat who has no authority to act on behalf of Mst. Asmat Bibi. Further submits that a document not exhibited cannot be read into evidence. No evidence whatsoever was produced. to prove the alleged payment of Rs,83,000 to Mst.Asmat Bibi, in fact the petitioner was a tenant of respondent and till today he had not paid any rent.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. In para.18 of the impugned judgment it has been held by the learned Lower Appellate Court that thumb-impression on mark A have been tampered with by putting another thumb-impression over it to evade identification but both the Superimposed and superimposing impression are different from the right and left thumb-impression of Mst. Asmat Bibi on her sample paper. In nutshell, it has been reported by the Finger Print Expert Bureau that thumb-impression on mark A are not identical to the admitted thumb impression of Asmat Bibi which leads to establish that Asmt Bibi had never affixed her thumb-impression on mark A. Though the Finger Print Expert was put to lengthy cross- examination but nothing detrimental to the cause of Mst.. Asmat could be brought on record. As far as payment of the consideration of agreement mark A is concerned, the reasoning given by the learned Lower Appellate Court in para.19 are duly supported from the evidence on record. It has been held by the learned Lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff/petitioner has not been able to prove the payment of Rs,83,000 to Asmat Bibi. The possession of the suit property was held pursuance to the agreement mark "A" but Sher Muhammad was in occupation of the property as a tenant because the plaintiff Sher Muhammad while appearing as P.W.1 admitted during the cross- examination that he had been in po-asession of the disputed property as tenant under Asmat Bibi.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner I was unable to point any irregularity or misreading of evidence on the part of the learned Appellate Court so as to warrant interference it exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The findings of fact recorded by the learned Additional District Judge are sound and based on proper reading of the evidence. The petitioner also having not approached the Court with clean hands is not entitled to any relief 'what to talk of discretionaryrelief because the petitioner/plaintiff did not mention in the plaint that he was in possession of the suit property as a tenant under Mst. Asmat Bibi. To my mind, the plaintiff being tenant has tried to usurp the property of the lady through forged and fake agreement to sell. Resultantly, there is no merit in this revision petition, which is dismissed.