' A suit for specific performance was filed by petitioner-plaintiff, namely, Ghulam Hassan, regarding agreement to sell dated 24-8-1980, against defendants Nos.I and 3, who are brothers and sister of the plaintiff-petitioner. Defendants Nos.4 to 6 are the purchasers of the suit-land through Mutation No,148-B, dated 22-7-1986 and Mutation No,1395, dated 27-9-1986. The petitioner-plaintiff stated that he had purchased 1 Kanal and 1 Marla of land situated at Mauza Jandwala, Tehsil Kallurkot, District Bhakkar, in consideration of Rs,3,150 from his father, namely, Ghulam Muhammad, and entire amount was paid. It is also stated that the possession was delivered to him. In the written statement, defendant No,2 conceded the claim of the petitioner as contained in the suit, whereas defendants Nos.1, 3 and 6 in their written statement have alleged that the agreement dated 24-8- 1980 between the parties, namely, Ghulam Muhammad and the petitioner-plaintiff, is a forged document.
2. From the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 2-7-1991 decreed the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff. Defendants Sher Muhammad Khan and others filed an appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar vide his judgment dated 9-5- 1994 set aside the decree of the trial Court, hence this civil revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff argued that well-reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court was reversed against the record and the provisions of Articles 78 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 have been misinterpreted. Further argued that the First Appellate Court has wrongly decided the question of limitation while accepting the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondents controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. To my mind, the main controversy between the parties is reflected in Issues Nos.3, 4 and 7. The trial Court recorded the findings on Issues' Nos.4 and 7 in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge while setting aside the judgment of the trial Court has recorded the finding that no money was paid in the presence of the witnesses. Ghulam Hassan P.W.2 deposed that he purchased the suit land for Rs,3,500. He again corrected himself by saying that the consideration money was Rs,3,050. According to P.W.3 Peer Bakhsh, the consideration money was Rs,3,000 and Rs,50 or 40 more. The receipt Exh.P.2 has not been proved to be executed. The petitioner also produced Rana Khalil Ahmad, petition-writer, as P.W.1 who has stated that he had written Exh.P.1 agreement dated 24-8-1980, and Exh.P.2, the receipt. I have perused the evidence myself. P.W.2 is Ghulam Hassan son of Ghulam Muhammad, plaintiff Peer Bakhsh P.W.3 is marginal witness of the agreement Exh.P.1. All the three witnesses had contradicted on the point of payment of money in the presence of the witnesses, and the amount which has been paid, because in the plaint the case set up by the petitioner-plaintiff is that he paid the entire amount of Rs,3,150 at the time of execution of agreement Exh.P.1, but when he appeared in the winless-box as P.W.2 stated that he had purchased the suit land in consideration of Rs,3,500, and again stated that it was for Rs,3,050. Similarly, P.W.3 Peer Bakhsh stated the amount as Rs,3,000 and Rs,50 more. This fact that possession was handed over by Ghulam Muhammad to the plaintiff is stated in the report Exh.P.1. It is also the case of the plaintiff in the plaint but no Khasra Girdawari or any proof of the possession in the shape of entries in the Revenue Record has been produced. No proceedings for specific performance were initiated by Ghulam Hassan against his father in his lifetime. The mutation of inheritance was sanctioned as Exh.P.3 on 29-7-1985, and further mutation of transfer of land was attested through Exhs.P.4 and P.5 in favour of defendants Nos.5 and 6. Neither any objection was raised regarding the attestation of the mutation nor the relief of specific performance has been claimed against the subsequent vendee under section 27 of the Specific Relief Act.
5. No doubt, under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 execution of document had to be proved by examining the scribe and attesting witness, which, according to the learned counsel, has been done in this case, but the execution of Exhs.P.1 and P.2 seems to be doubtful as mentioned in preceding paragraphs of the judgment, and even otherwise the relief of specific performance is discretionary which cannot be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
' In view of the above, I find no misreading or non-reading of evidence on the record.. This revision petition has no force, which is dismissed accordingly.