2008 PLP 762 (SCMR)
MUBASHAR AHMED — Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAHIDA PARVEEN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 762 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and M. Javed Buttar, JJ |
| Parties | MUBASHAR AHMED — Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAHIDA PARVEEN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 762 (SCMR)?
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 762 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and M. Javed Buttar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 762 (SCMR) (MUBASHAR AHMED — Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAHIDA PARVEEN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Amjad Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court and C.M. Lateef, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th June, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 17-11-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petition No.346 of 2000).
S. 12-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Suit for specific performance of agreement
Petitioner filed written statement wherein execution of agreement between parties was not denied, but he subsequently moved application for amendment of written statement and for permitting him to deny execution of agreement at a belated stage after 18 years, which application was finally dismissed by High Court
No jurisdictional defect was found in the impugned judgment, passed by High Court
All three courts were justified in taking the view that petitioner had sought to change the very basis of his written statement by introducing a new element of denial of execution of agreement
High Court had rightly held that it would change defence of petitioner if he was allowed to amend his written statement after a period of 18 years
In absence of any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by High Court leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment, dated 17-11-2000, passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, in, Writ Petition No.5346 of 2000.
2. The respondents Nos.1 to 8 instituted, in year 1975, against the petitioner, a suit for specific performance of an agreement. The petitioner filed his written statement on 1-1-1977 wherein the execution of the agreement between two parties was not denied. However, the petitioner moved an application on 6-11-1995 for amendment of the written statement and for permitting him to deny the execution of agreement at a belated stage after 18 years. The application was dismissed by the trial Court on 19-3-1996. His revision petition also met the same fate. The writ petition of the petitioner was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, by the impugned judgment, dated 17-11-2000. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner ought to have been allowed to amend the pleadings as the agreement to sell had never been specifically admitted earlier.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the available record. We do not find any jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. All the three Courts were justified in taking the view that the petitioner sought to change the very basis of his written statement by introducing a. new element of denial of execution of agreement. We agree with the view taken by the High Court that it would change his defence if the petitioner was allowed to amend his written statement after a period of 18 years. The learned counsel was not aware as to what had the fate of the main suit instituted by the respondents. In any case, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. Even otherwise, this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. H.B.T./M-309/SC Leave to appeal refused.