2025 SCMR 551 (PLP)
AKHTAR WAHEED — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2025 SCMR 551 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Amin ud Din Khan and Musarrat Hilali, JJ |
| Parties | AKHTAR WAHEED — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 SCMR 551 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 SCMR 551 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Amin ud Din Khan and Musarrat Hilali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 SCMR 551 (PLP) (AKHTAR WAHEED — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qadir Bukhsh, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (via video link from Lahore).
- Muhammad Yasin Hatif, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (via video link from Lahore).
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.R. No. 274 of 2017).
S.12
Specific performance of agreement to sell
All pages not signed/thumb impressed
Suit filed by appellant/plaintiff was dismissed by High Court as first page of the agreement did not contain signatures and thumb impression
If first page of agreement was taken out of consideration, as it did not contain signatures/thumb impressions of any of the parties as well as of the witnesses, the suit for specific performance could not be decreed
Supreme Court declined to interfere in findings of High Court which were the result of thorough examination of documentary as well as oral evidence
Appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
AMIN UD DIN KHAN, J.
The appellant filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell whereas respondent No.1 ('the respondent') filed a suit for cancellation of the said document. The Trial Court was pleased to decree the suit of the appellant vide judgment and decree dated 14.06.2012 directing the respondent to return earnest money of Rs.230,000/- as well as equal amount thereto i.e. Rs.230,000/- to the appellant, whereas, suit of the respondent for cancellation of the said document was dismissed. The Appellate Court through a consolidated judgment dated 29.10.2016 accepted the appeal filed by the appellant and decreed the suit for specific performance whereas the appeal of the respondent was dismissed. The respondent filed a civil revision which was allowed, through the impugned judgment whereby suit for specific performance was dismissed while suit for cancellation of document was decreed. Hence this appeal.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length. Learned counsel for the respondent is available as a caveator. The alleged agreement consists upon two pages; first page does not contain signatures/thumb impressions of any of the parties as well as witnesses, while page-2 contains signatures/thumb impressions which were also exhibited as Exh.PW-1 /5, Exh.PW-1/8, etc. during the statement of the plaintiff/ appellant. If first page of agreement is taken out of consideration, as it does not contain signatures/thumb impressions of any of the parties as well as of the witnesses, the suit for specific performance cannot be decreed. We have carefully gone through the findings recorded by the learned High Court whereby Civil Revision filed by respondent was accepted and his suit for cancellation of document was decreed whereas suit of the appellant for specific performance was dismissed. The learned High Court has thoroughly evaluated the documentary; as well as oral evidence and on the basis of true interpretation of the evidence came to a conclusion which is in the light of law declared by this Court.
3. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the High Court is correct and we cannot disagree with the same. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. MH/A-7/SC Appeal dismissed.