' This regular second appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 23-11-1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, whereby the judgment and decree dated 2-4- 1989 passed by Mr. Muhammad Afzal Zahid, learned Civil Judge. 1st Class, Faisalabad, in Civil Suit No,600/1 of 1981 was upheld.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Najam Ullah (defendant No,1) agreed on his behalf as well as on behalf of defendants Nos.2 to 9 to sell .79 Kanals and 2 Marlas of land at the rate of Rs,20,000, per acre, fully described in the headnote of the plaint, in favour of Allah. Ditta appellant/plaintiff vide an agreement dated 6-7-1978. The plaintiff paid Rs,30,000 at the time of the execution of the agreement and the remaining sale price was to be paid before 6-10-1978. The plaintiff failed to make the payment of the remaining sale price and get the sale-deed registered within the specified period. On 7-1-1979, the defendants Nos. i0 and 11 purchased the suit land through a registered sale-deed. The plaintiff challenged ,the validity of the sale-deed by means of a civil suit and prayed for a decree for specific performance of agreement dated 6-7-1978. The defendants contested the suit and pleaded that the plaintiff had failed to perform his part of the contract and that after rescinding the agreement, the suit land was sold to defendants Nos.10 and 11. It was further pleaded that the earnest money received by defendants Nos.1 to 9 was paid back to the plaintiff.
3. The pleadings of the parties led to the framing of the following issues.
' ISSUES: ' Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit? OPD.
(2) Whether the suit is not correctly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is the correct valuation and its effect? OPD.
(3) Whether the suit is false, frivolous, vexatious, if so, is the defendant entitled to special costs under section 35-A, C.P.C., if so, to what extent? OPD.
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the specific performance of the contract of sale, if so, on what terms and conditions? OPP.
(4-A) Whether the sale agreement has been rescinded by parties because earnest money received back by plaintiff? OPD.
(5) Relief.
4. The learned trial Court, after making appraisal of the entire evidence, dismissed the plaintiff's suit, vide judgment and decree, dated 2-4-1989. Allah Ditta Khan plaintiff preferred an appeal.
Which also tailed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant could not deny the fact that the plaintiff had been paid back the earnest money of Rs,70.000 through Bank draft. As such, both the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff is not entitled to get specific performance of the contract. 1 find no substance in this appeal, which is dismissed with costs throughout.