1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 12-10-1999 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed R.F.A. No,51 of 1994 filed by the petitioner maintaining the judgment/decree dated 30-5-1994 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khanewal.
2. ' Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of land measuring 400 Kanals, 18 Marlas on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 15-10-1989 for a consideration of Rs,14,00,000; out of which Rs,5,00,000 were allegedly paid as earnest money. The respondents denied the execution of sale agreement. It was also averred that Mat. Sardar Begum, who was shown to be one of the vendors, had already died and the alleged agreement had been fabricated by Zafar Iqbal Maitla who was out to create numerous problems, civil as well as criminal, for the respondents. He, in order to grab the property of the respondents, involved them in a number of civil and criminal cases and let loose a reign of terror because of his own influence which he was having in the locality. He put up this forged case through his hunchmen, Mahr Muhammad Iqbal, the present petitioner.
3. ' Out of divergent pleadings of the parties issues were framed by the trial Court. The parties led their evidence and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khanewal, through his judgment dated 30-5- 1994 dismissed the suit of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner filed aforesaid R.F.A. Which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through the judgment dated 12-10-1999, impugned herein. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. ' We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the entire material placed on record minutely. We have noticed that Muhammad Yasin (P.W.1) and Muhammad Sharif (P.W.2) had entered the witness-box to establish the execution of the agreement to sell. Both of them are employees of aforementioned Zafar lqbal Mania. Their presence at the time of alleged execution of sale agreement has not been proved. Their testimony is full of contradictions; the former claimed that the agreement was drafted on a stamp paper while in cross-examination he took a somersault and deposed that it was not drafted on any stamp paper, while the latter did not know the name of the person who had drafted the alleged agreement to sell. The petitioner admitted that he did not know Muhammad Zaman, the alleged executant of the document. He further stated that he did not know the name of the deed-writer.
5. The agreement to sell, as earlier stated, was exe 'uted by Muhammad Zaman for himself as well as attorney of Mst. Sardar Begum, Munawar Jan and Muhammad Banaras. Mst. Sardar Begum had already died two years prior to the, execution of alleged agreement to sell. This state of affairs was not controverted by the petitioner during the course of evidence brought on record. Certainly in view of death of Mst. Sardar Begum the alleged power of attorney became inoperative and a nullity in the eyes of law. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading or legal flaw in the judgments of the Courts below warranting interference by this Court. Apart from this, the petition is barred by five days.
6. ' Resultantly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the instant petition being without any force is accordingly dismissed and leave declined.