Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115 , 12

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---Specific performance of agreement ---Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of---Questions, whether defendant who agreed to sell property of other defendant to plaintiff as Mukhtar-e-Aam of one defendant actually was attorney of that defendant and that whether the alleged agreement to sell was a genuine document, were questions of facts-- Courts below, competent to believe or disbelieve evidence led by parties, after having applied their conscious mind to evidence and circumstances appearing in case and also giving sound and cogent reasons, concurrently found those facts against plaintiff/petitioner---In absence of any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional defect, concurrent judgments and decrees of Courts below, could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of High Court, especially when no misreading of evidence had been pointed out. Ch. Nur Ellahi for Petitioner. ORDER On 17-12-1986 Mushtaq Ahmad plaintiff filed suit for the specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10-1-1982 against Muhammad Ikram-ul -Haq and Mst. Amena Siddiqua in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sahiwal. Subsequently Jameel Ahmad respondent No.3 was impleaded as defendant. It was averred in the suit that the disputed shop owned by Muhammad Ikram-ul- Haq was sold by his Mukhtar-e-Aam Mst. Amena Siddiqua for Rs.24,000 to the plaintiff vide agreement to sell dated 10-1-1982. The plaintiff paid Rs.6,000 as earnest money and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed. The suit was resisted. It was denied that Mst. Amena Siddiqua was Mukhtar-e-Aam of Muhammad Ikram-ul-Haq. The execution of agreement to sell by Mst. Amena Siddiqua as attorney of Muhammad Ikram-ul-Haq in favour of Mushtaq Ahmad plaintiff/ petitioner was also denied. The plea of the defendants was that not only the suit was barred by time but the agreement to sell was forged and without any authority as well. The trial Court framed six issues. The plaintiff/petitioner appeared as P.W. 5. He produced Zahoor Hussain PW 1, Muhammad Akram PW 2, Muhammad Siddiq PW 3 and Muhammad Ramzan…