2008 PLP 1446 (CLC)
Mst. KHALIDA PERVEEN and 6 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MAQSOOD through L.Rs. and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1446 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. KHALIDA PERVEEN and 6 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MAQSOOD through L.Rs. and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1446 (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 1446 (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 1446 (CLC) (Mst. KHALIDA PERVEEN and 6 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MAQSOOD through L.Rs. and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amjad Iqbal Sindhu for Petitioner.
- M. Tahir Naeem for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 12
Suit for specific performance of agreements to sell
Trial Court dismissed the suit but Appellate Court below reversed judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit
Counsel for defendants was unable to advert to any such jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity in the impugned judgment, which would justify interference therein while exercising revisional jurisdiction
Impugned appellate decree being unexceptionable, and consistent with the record, could not be interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The petitioners-defendants impugn the appellant judgment and decree dated 8-12-1997, whereby the decree of the learned trial Court dated 18-12-1995 was reversed and a suit filed by the respondent seeking specific performance of agreements to sell dated 26-1-1978 and 24-4-1978 was decreed.
2. The facts of the case have been elaborately set out, in the appellant judgment and need and therefore, be reproduced in extenso.
3. The petitioners-defendants had denied execution of the agreement of the agreements. The learned Appellate Court, however, noted that the execution of the agreement had been duly proved. Furthermore, there was uncontrovertible evidence that the petitioners had executed a power-of-attorney in favour of the brother of the respondent-plaintiff on 26-4-1978, which was then cancelled through abtalnama executed eight years later on 22-11-1986. Learned counsel for the petitioners acknowledged that the respondent and his brother were not, in any manner, related to the petitioners. He was unable to explain as to why a power-of-attorney was then executed in favour of the respondent's brother. This circumstance has rightly been given weight by the learned Appellant Court for holding that the agreements in question were, in fact, executed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff after receipt of the total consideration and delivery of the disputed property to the respondent.
3. In addition to the above, learned counsel for the respondent adverted to the written statement submitted on behalf of the petitioners wherein they asserted that the respondent was their tenant on the basis of a written rent agreement. No such agreement was produced in evidence. Furthermore; when the petitioner appeared in Court, he changed his position by stating that there was no rent agreement.
4. In the foregoing circumstances. I find the impugned appellate decree to be unexceptionable being consistent with the record. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to advert to any such jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity in the impugned judgment, which would justify interference therein while exercising revisional jurisdiction in these circumstance, I find no merit in this petition, which is therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./K-25 /L Petition dismissed.