1998 PLP 592 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SARWAR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus ZULFIQAR and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 592 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hafeez Memon and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SARWAR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus ZULFIQAR and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 592 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 592 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hafeez Memon and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 592 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SARWAR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus ZULFIQAR and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Tayyab, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th May, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 14‑11‑1995, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No.2274 of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 54‑--Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 179‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Non‑examination of attesting witnesses of agreement‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was dismissed by Trial Court, inter alia, on the ground that one of the attesting witnesses to sale was not examined by plaintiff‑‑‑Order of Trial Court was affirmed in appeal and revision ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Plaintiff claimed that suit filed by him was dismissed substantially on the ground that he has failed to examine one of attesting witnesses; that Supreme Court in another case had granted leave on that identical point whether it eras incumbent on plaintiff to examine witnesses attesting agreement to sell for the reason that agreement to sell was not perfect contract of sale, as such it did not require registration under S. 54, Transfer of Property Act, 1882‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention raised as also on account of leave having been granted on identical question of law involved in another case. C. P. No. 1368/L of 1993 rel.
Judgment & Decree
C. P. No. 1368/L of 1993 rel. S.M. Tayyab, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th May, 1996. ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.‑‑‑Through this petition the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 14‑11‑1995 passed by the learned Lahore High Court, dismissing the Civil Revision No.2274 of 1995 filed by the petitioner against the judgments of the learned Additional District Judge, Okara, dated 18‑9‑1995, and the learned Civil Judge, Depalpur, dated 16‑10‑1994.
2. The petitioner's suit for specific performance filed against the respondents was dismissed by the trial Court inter alia on the ground that one of the attesting witnesses of the agreement to sale was not examined by the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the Civil Revision filed by him was also met the same fate. hence this petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit filed by him was dismissed substantially on the ground that he had failed to examine one of the attesting witnesses; that this Court in Civil Petition No.1368/L of 1993 had granted leave on this identical point whether it was incumbent on the plaintiff to examine the witnesses attesting the agreement to sale for the reason that the agreement to sale is not a perfect contract of sale, and as such, did not require registration under section 54 of the Transfer of Property, Act.
4. Since on the same point leave has been already granted in Civil Petition No. 1368/L of 1993, we grant leave in this petition also. A.A./M‑3263/S Leave granted.