1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 4-2-2002 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No,2055 of 1995 was allowed and the determinations of the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, recorded in his judgment dated 27-9-1995 were set at naught by restoring the judgment/decree earlier passed by the trial Court on 30-4-1991.
2. ' The facts briefly narrated are that an agreement was executed between the parties on 6-3-1963 which was got registered and possession of the disputed land was transferred to the respondents for a consideration of Rs,11,660. At the time of execution of the agreement earnest money to the tune of Rs,1500 was paid and subsequently another amount of Rs,2698 was paid to the petitioner in terms of the agreement. Instalments in the treasury, according to the terms of the agreement, were to be paid by the respondents. The agreement further provided that the registered sale-deed would be got executed after the conferment of proprietary rights.
3. ' Since the petitioner did not execute the sale-deed in terms of the agreement, as such the respondents filed a suit for specific performance on 29-6-1982. The petitioner denied the very existence of the agreement. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties issues were framed. The parties led their respective evidence. The learned Civil Judge through his judgment dated 30-4- 1991 decreed the suit. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the above judgment of the trial Court and the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 27-9-1995 accepted the same and dismissed the suit of the respondents being barred by time. The respondents filed aforesaid civil revision in the Lahore High Court, which has been accepted by a learned Single Judge through the judgment dated 4-2-2002, impugned herein. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel and have perused the entire documents placed on record with his assistance. It must be stated at the very outset that the conduct of the petitioner is not above board as he has denied the very existence of theagreement to sell which was got registered by the parties and pursuant thereto possession of the property in dispute was given to the respondents in the year 1963. The proprietary rights were conferred upon the petitioner on 30-4-1977 and consequently Mutation No,215 was sanctioned on 4-5-1977. The respondents as reflected from the record, according to the terms of the agreement, also paid the instalments. They remained vigilant throughout and the petitioner deferred the execution of the sale-deed on one pretext or the other and finally declined to perform his part of the contract. In such a situation it cannot be said that the respondents slept over their rights and their suit was barred by limitation, particularly so when they had no notice of the refusal of performance on the part of the petitioner. We have also noticed that possession of the disputed land was transferred to the respondents by the petitioner under the agreement as far back as in the year 1963. During all this period the petitioner has not brought any evidence worth consideration on record to demonstrate that possession of the respondents was either illegal or was under some other terms.
5. Admittedly, the possession was transferred to the respondents in the year 1963.
6. ' Keeping all the aforestated features of the case into consideration, we are of the view that the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court is free from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The instant petition being without any force is accordingly dismissed and .