1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 19-10-2000 of a.
2. Learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Civil Revision No,1061-D of 1988 filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 was accepted by reversing the findings of the Courts below.
3. ' Facts briefly narrated are that a snit for specific performance with permanent injunction was filed by Ahmad Din, the predecessor-ininterest of petitioners Nos.1 to 5, alongwith petitioner No,6, Shukar Din, against the respondents. It was averred that Munshi Khan (respondent No,3) had agreed to sell the land in dispute to the petitioners for a consideration of Rs, 20,000 through an agreement executed on 14-12-1978 whereby entire consideration amount was received by him with a stipulation that the land would be transferred upon conferment of rights by the Settlement Department. However, he, in a clandestine manner, sold the same to respondents Nos.1 and 2 through a sale-deed executed on 19-4-1981.
4. ' Munshi Khan, respondent No,3, did not deny the execution of the agreement but denied the payment of consideration amount. He further stated that after the conferment of rights in spite of his approach to the petitioners, they were reluctant and dilly-dallied the execution of the sale- deed, whereupon he was constrained to sell the same to respondents Nos.1 and 2. Out of pleadings of the parties issues were framed, the parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 27-1-1987 decreed the suit of the petitioners. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 as well as respondent No,3 filed separate appeals against the above judgment, which were dismissed through a consolidated judgment dated 13-3-1988 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot. The respondents preferred two Civil Revisions bearing No,1061-D of 1988 and 2279 of 1990. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed Civil Revision No,2279 of 1990 filed by Munshi Khan respondent No,3, while Civil Revision No,1061-D of 1988 filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 was allowed. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
5. ' We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel and have perused the entire documents placed on record. We have noticed that both the Courts below had non-suited the respondents simply for non-substantiation of Issue No,8 which was to the effect that they were bona fide purchasers with consideration and without notice. The learned Single Judge of the High Court took pains in scanning the entire record whereby he came to the conclusion that respondents Nos.1 and 2 were bona fide purchasers of the property in dispute without notice. He came to this determination by referring to the evidence brought on record by the parties. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that though respondents Nos.1 and 2 were impleaded as parties as subsequent vendees but nowhere in the plaint it was averred that they had the knowledge of the agreement executed in favour of the petitioners by Munshi Khan, respondent No,3. It is also to be appreciated that some of the witnesses appearing from petitioners' side stated that respondents Nos.1 and 2 were told about the earlier sale to the petitioners. However, this factum has not been substantiated from record as no such question was put to respondent No,1 Chiragh Din in cross-examination who appeared in the witness-box as D.W.6. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, after evaluating the entire evidence, has determined as a factual controversy qua the knowledge and notice to respondents Nos.1 and 2 respecting the sale in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
6. ' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed and leave declined.
7. ' In view of above discussion and dismissal of the main petition, Criminal Original No,8/L of 2001 filed by the petitioners also stands dismissed.