2007 PLP 1884 (CLC)

MUAHMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 4-1-1992 (Exh.A.1) against the respondent through his General Attorney Rana Afzal. According to Exh.P.1 total sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000 was paid in advance to the respondent.

2. It is to be noted that respondent was never served during trial. Service was effected on Rana Afzal, who claimed himself to be General Attorney of the respondent. Suit was contested by the said Attorney, which was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 23-6-1999. It was assailed by the said Attorney through appeal, which was allowed on 23-6-2000. Petitioner challenges this appellate decree through the instant Civil Revision.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to 2002 MLD 1002 that agreement to sell is not required to be attested by two witnesses, therefore, absence of attesting witnesses on Exh. P. 1 cannot be fatal to his case. Further submits that the Stamp Vendor and the scribe have supported the document Exh.P.1.

4. Vide order dated 19-6-2007, I had directed to proceed ex parte against the respondent on the ground that respondent has been served though General Attorney Exh.D.1. Today I have examined Exh.D.1, it is an unregistered document having many cutting on it, therefore, without personal service of respondent he could not be proceeded against ex parte either by this Court or before the Courts below.

5. However, I proceed to decide this matter having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Exh.P.1 is not even attested by any witness. This document pertains to a future obligation, allegedly undertaken by the respondent to transfer the properly in dispute in favour of the petitioner. Section 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 requires that if such a document is reduced into writing, it has to be attested by two witnesses. Non-attestation by witnesses makes the document inadmissible in evidence. Law referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. The said case law refers judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported as 1998 SCMR 760, which judgment speaks that a document can be validly proved even through one witness if he is trustworthy. To follow the said law it is the minimum requirement that the document is attested by two witnesses. It would be a question latter that whether the said document can be proved through the statement of one witness or two. In the instant case there is no witness at all attesting Exh.P.

1. In these circumstances, the document which is the basis of the suit of the petitioner is inadmissible, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, finding no merit in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. F.B./M-449/L Petition dismissed.