2008 PLP 1055 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM through Legal Heirs and 7 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1055 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM through Legal Heirs and 7 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1055 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1055 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1055 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM through Legal Heirs and 7 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Mahmood for Petitioner.
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 12 & 54
Civil Procedure ode (V of 1908), S.115
Suit for specific performance of agreement and for perpetual injunction
Case of plaintiff was that defendants agreed to sell land in question to him for consideration, they had received earnest money and had agreed that remaining sale consideration would be paid at the time of attestation of mutation of sale-deed
Plaintiff alleged that defendant, sold out suit-land for consideration in favour of another defendant despite the fact that they were bound to transfer suit-land to petitioner
Trial Court dismissed suit holding that payment of alleged advance money was not paid by plaintiff to defendants and that no proof was available that one defendant was competent to act on behalf of defendants
Said finding of the Trial Court was confirmed by the Appellate Court holding that neither any oral agreement of sale of the property in dispute was proved nor payment of earnest money was established
Concurrent findings recorded by the courts below could not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction as powers of the High Court under S.115, C.P.C. were limited in scope
High Court could not interfere in exercise of powers under S.115, C.P.C., even if findings of the courts below were erroneous.
Judgment & Decree
HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.
This civil revision is filed against the judgments and decree, dated 14-6-2001 and 6-2-2002, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khushab and the learned Additional District Judge, Khushab.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner Muhammad Khan filed a suit for specific performance and for perpetual injunction stating that the defendants Nos.1 to 7 agreed to sell the land in question on 16-10-1992 for a consideration of Rs.15,000 and the defendant No.1 received Rs.5,000 as earnest money for himself and on behalf of defendants Nos.2 to
7. Agreeing that the remaining sale consideration of Rs.10,000 would be paid at the time of attestation of mutation or registration of sale-deed but .the defendants sold out the suit-land for a consideration of Rs.21,000 in favour of defendant No.8, despite the fact that they were bound to transfer the suit-land in favour of the present petitioner. Petitioner contacted them but they refused to accede the petitioner's request. Before the learned Civil Judge the respondents Nos.1 to 7 were proceeded against ex parte. However, respondent No.8 contested the suit and out of pleadings of the parties 8 issues were framed. The evidence was recorded and after examining the evidence on record as well as the Revenue Record in a learned Civil Judge, dismissed the petitioner's suit holding that it is evident that payment of alleged advance money was not paid to the defendants Nos.2 to 7 and there is B also no proof that the defendant No.1 had at all competent to act on behalf of defendants Nos.2 to
7. Further hold that the plaintiff's witnesses are not aware of the discussion and the land subject-matter of the alleged sale agreement. This finding was confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, holding that neither any oral agreement of sale of the property in dispute was proved nor the payment of earnest money of Rs.5,000.
3. Argument heard. Record perused.
4. The concurrent finding recorded by both the learned Courts below, if examined, in juxtaposition the evidence available on the record, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned matter on the sole ground that under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code the power of High Court are limited one and there is ample law laid down by the Honourable Supreme of Pakistan that if findings of Courts below are even erroneous, High Court cannot interfere in exercise of powers under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Reliance in this behalf is placed on Hakim-ud-Din through L.Rs. and others v. Faiz Bakhsh and others 2007 SCMR 870 and Rashid Ahmad v. Said Ahmad 2007 SCMR
926. Accordingly the civil revision is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-93/L Petition dismissed.