' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Petitioners seek leave to appeal against judgment, dated 6-11- 2003, passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, in R.S.A. No,198 of 1984.
2. Brief facts of the matter are that respondent Mst. Zohran Sarwar wife of Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah filed a declaratory suit before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan with the averments that she is owner in possession of the suit property and that defendants have no concern whatsoever with suit property, and in the alternative she prayed for specific performance of the contract.
3. According to the averments of the suit, the petitioners entered into an agreement of sale of the Plots Nos.14 and 15 situated within the Municipal limits of Dera Ghazi Khan with respondent No,1 and Rs,9,000 were received by the petitioners through her husband and it was agreed upon between the parties that in near future they will sign sale-deed and the whole amount was received by them through a receipt and that possession of the plots was handed over to her. She further stated that when she contacted the petitioners/defendants through her husband and asked them to execute the sale-deed in her favour, unfortunately, they kept her on false promises but did not execute the sale-deed.
4. According to the plaint, on 20-7-1970, stamp papers were purchased on the same date and the sale-deed regarding Plot No,15 was executed while the sale price was already received by the petitioners on15-7-1970. When the petitioners failed to execute the sale-deed, she filed a civil suit.
5. After filing of the suit, respondent/plaintiff came to know that the petitioners/defendants Nos.1 and 2 subsequently sold the disputed Plot No,15 in favour of Muhammad Bakhsh, etc. Who were alsc impleaded as a party in the suit in the array of defendants and the amended plaint was also filed.
6. The petitioners/defendants controverted the contentions of the respondents and submitted a joint statement and raised various objections and also stated that respondent No,1 is not in possession of the suit property and that suit itself was not maintainable and was also time-barred.
Objection was also raised about the valuation of the suit for Court-fee purposes and jurisdiction.
7. The trial Court, after pleading of the parties settled ten issues. The parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. After conclusion of the evidence, and hearing the parties, the Civil Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan decreed the suit property in favour of the respondents. The petitioners being aggrieved and dissatisfied, assailed the judgment of the Civil Judge II Class, Dera Ghazi Khan, dated 24-1-1982 by filing Civil Appeal No,77 of 1981.
8. The learned Additional District Judge, after hearing the partiesdismissedthe appeal of the petitioners andmaintained the judgment/decree of the Civil Judge II Class, Dera Ghazi Khan.
9. The petitioners assailed the judgment of the First Appellate Court by way of filing R.S.A. No,198 of 1984 and learned Judge in Chambers, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the R.S.A. Vide judgment, dated 6-11-2003.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the Courts below had not considered the case in its proper perspective and the impugned judgment is the result of misreading and non-reading of the material and that respondent No,1 is not in possession of the property in dispute and leave may be granted.
11. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and minutely examined the record available. There are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the three Courts below. We have also gone through the material available and found that the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court and learned Single Judge in Chambers have considered the entire material evidence and there is no misreading or non-reading of the material or misconstruction of law as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The impugned judgment is based on the proper appreciation of facts and law and is notopen to exception. The relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "It is clear from an examination of the registered sale-deed (Exh.P.7) in respect of Plot No,14 and the executed butunregistered sale-deed (Exh.P.2) in respect of the disputed PlotNo,15 that Exh.P.2 had, in fact, been signed by the two vendors, namely, Muhammad Sharif and Imam Din, but had notbeen registered because of deficient stamp duty. These two documents were both prepared on stamp paper of Rs,180 each. However, in case of Exh.P.7, the deficiency in stamp duty was made good by attaching to the said sale-deed stamp paper worth Rs,35. Subsequently, Exh.P.7 was duly registered with the competent Registrar. An examination of Exh.P.2 shows that the deficiency of stamp duty was not made good in respect thereof. The signatures of the two vendors on both documents tally. Furthermore, Exh.P.1, which is an extract from the register maintained by the treasury at D.G. Khan, showing sale of stamp papers for both Exh.P-7 and Exh.P-2 were purchased on the same date i.e, 20-7-1970 at serial Nos. 21 and 22 respectively. The foregoing circumstances, coupled with the other evidence on record, which has been examined in detail, by both the Courts below and by me, show that the disputed Plot No,15 was sold by the above named vendors in favour of Mst. Zohra Sarwar respondent/plaintiff. In this view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere in the concurrent findings rendered by the two Courts below. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed."
12. For the facts, circumstances and reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner is without merit and substance which is hereby dismissed along with the listed application and leave declined.