ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Civil Rev. Application No.S-68 of 2017

 

Date

               Order with signature of Judge

           

                           1.      For orders on office objection

                           2.      For katcha peshi

                           3.      For orders on CMA No.608/2017

22-9-2017

                      Mr. Nizamuddin Noonari, Advocate for the Applicant

                           Respondents present in person

                           12-09-2014

                                                 .-.-.-. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

 

               Heard the counsel. The case at hand is about Specific Performance of Contract which the applicant allegedly entered into with the respondents, who were challenging as to very authenticity of the agreement and payment of the consideration. The trial court in this regard framed six issues and after considering the evidence, by giving cogent reasons as discussed in each of the issues and after giving cogent finding thereon finally came to the conclusion that the plaintiff (applicant) badly failed to prove its case in his favour and dismissed the suit.

               The appellate court vide its judgment produced on page-99 has also considered all aspect of the dispute at hand and even went further to the extent that the appellant failed to get verified the thumb impression of the respondents on the alleged sale agreement from NADRA.

               Both the courts below have reached to a concurrent finding as to the very legitimacy of the agreement and applicant’s failure to show evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that the payment has been made to the respondents. Respondent ladies are present in person and have denied any agreement or having received any money either.

               In these circumstances when the scope of revision u/s 115 CPC is very limited, this court has only to see that there are material irregularities in the impugned judgments which the learned counsel for the applicant failed to point out. No new grounds are even raised except that they are in possession of some private video clips of these ladies which for reasons best known to them were secretly filimed, thus of no relevance. In such circumstances I do not find any reason to defer from the concurrent findings of the two courts below, revision application is accordingly dismissed.   

                                                                                                         JUDGE

  

Suleman Khan/PA