' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.-Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 27-1-1999 passed by a learned Single Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.S.A. No, 21 of 1990 whereby the same was dismissed.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that plaintiffs Nos.1 to 6 namely Hassan Din, Farzand,Shah Muhammad , Yaqoob, Ghulam Muhammad Akbar sons of Jalal Din and Netnat son of Atta. Muhammad and defendants namely Hassan Din, Hidayat Ali, Muhammad Sharif, Hayat Muhammad and Haider Ali sons of Ilahi Bakhsh by an agreement dated 25-1-1975 agreed to buy a land measuring 242 Kanals, 12 Marlas comprised in Khatuni Nos.12 to 15, Khata No,3 of the Register Haqdaran for the year 1969-70 situated in village Waigal, Tehsil and District Lahore from R.A.
Khan/Telephonee defendant No,
1. Out of the above land half i.e, 121 Kanals, 6 Marlas was purchased by the above mentioned plaintiffs whereas other half was purchased by defendants Nos.2 to 6. The defendant No,1 agreed to sell the total land against a sale price of Rs,1,81,950 and the plaintiffs and defendants Nos.2 to 6 paid an amount of Rs,20,000 to the defendant No,1 as earnest money respectively; total amount of Rs,40,000 was paid through instalments by the defendant No,1 to the Government as a price of the suit land. The rest of amount of Rs,1,41.950 was to be paid in equal shares by the plaintiff and defendants Nos.2 to 6 at the time of registration of sale-deed. It was pre-condition of the sale deed that the defendant No,1 after acquiring the proprietary rights in the land would get the sale-deed registered and the mutation sanctioned under it in favour of the parties. The plaintiffs were put in possession of their shares whereas defendants Nos.2 to 6 were regularly given their share of land. It was averred that defendants occupied 4 Kanals, 4 Marlas more than their share and the plaintiffs claimed that they are entitled to the same. The defendant No,1 R.A. Khan Telephonee could not get the proprietary rights in the suit-land till 17-2-1987 from the Government and failed to perform the part of contract. It was further stated that defendant N9.1 sold the land in favour of defendants Nos.6 to 19 against a consideration of Rs,2,19,000 vide registered sale-deed, dated 30-4-1978. The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the land and specific performance of the contract against defendant No, 1 claiming therein that they were entitled to get the agreement of sale-deed, dated 25-1-1975 finally executed that sale-deed in their favour regarding their share from defendant No,1 on payment of balance amount of Rs,70,975.
3. The suit was contested by defendants Nos.4 to 19. They in the written statement denied averments and claimed that suit was time-barred and that plaintiffs have concealed the material facts. Defendants Nos.1 to 3 did not file written statement, as such, the suit was decreed against them on 7-10-1978. As regard the suit against the rest of the defendants Nos.4 to 19 suit of the plaintiffs was decreed with costs against them and plaintiffs were directed to deposit remaining price. The said judgment dated 4-6-1985 passed by learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, Lahore was assailed in appeal by the defendants as appellants, before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore which was dismissed on 12-11-1989, This judgment was challenged in R.S.A. No, 21 of 1999 before the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore which too was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 27-1-1999. It was this impugned judgment against which instant petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants against respondents/plaintiffs.
4. We have heard Ch. Shahbaz Khurshid, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioners as well as Mr. Saiful Malook, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of caveators/respondents and have gone through impugned judgment as well as record of proceedings in minute particulars.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that all the learned lower Courts have failed to consider that the original agreement dated 25-1-1975 was not available with the petitioners but it was respondents who had to prove its entire terms and conditions. Since the very agreement of which specific performance was claimed had not been produced on record the suit was liable to be dismissed.
6. Though the matter was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners at length, yet he could not point out any illegality, infirmity, misreading or non-appraisal of the evidence.
7. On the other side, the learned counsel for the respondents controverted the arguments advanced by the petitioners' counsel and supported the impugned judgment.
8. Admittedly the controversy raised in the case is concluded by all forums below, as such, the concurrent findings of the three Courts below are not opened to challenge. The Courts below have properly analysed/appreciated the evidence on record in its true perspective. We do not find any misreading or non-reading in the evidence or any jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment which is accordingly maintained.
' For the Above facts, circumstances and reasons, the -petition is dismissed and leave is refused.