2016 PLP 1925 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SABIR AWAN through LRs. and others — Petitioners Versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY, KARACHI — Respondent
| Citation | 2016 PLP 1925 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmed and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SABIR AWAN through LRs. and others — Petitioners Versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY, KARACHI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Agreement to sell |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 1925 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Agreement to sell as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 1925 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmed and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 1925 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SABIR AWAN through LRs. and others — Petitioners Versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY, KARACHI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Qadir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Nazar Hussain Dhoon, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1.
- Nemo for Respondent No.2.
- Mushtaq A. Memon, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.3 (i - vi).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the order dated 29.10.2015, passed by the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in High Court Appeal No. 111 of 2005)
Oral agreement
Record indicated that agreement to sell was entered into by the purchaser's brother with the seller, with the assistance of a broker
Neither the agreement or its terms had been brought on record nor the purchaser's brother or the broker were produced in evidence
Alleged receipt of payment of consideration amount was not produced in evidence before the Trial Court and did not form part of the record of the original suit
Oral agreement to sell, thus, did not stand proved
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly and leave was refused.
Judgment & Decree
GULZAR AHMED, J.
Respondent No. 3 had filed a suit in the High Court of Sindh at Karachi, which was decreed vide judgment and decree respectively dated 19.03.2005 and 12.04.2005. The said judgment and decree was challenged by filing High Court Appeal No. 111/2015, which too was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2015.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that there was an oral agreement for purchasing the suit property between the petitioner and Respondent No.3 and that the petitioner had made payment of the consideration amount and that the petitioner was not allowed to produce additional evidence by the appellate Court.
4. We have noted from the record that the agreement to sell, claimed by the petitioner, is stated to have been entered into by the petitioner's brother with Respondent No.3 with the assistance of broker Shahid Aleem. Neither the agreement or its terms have brought on record nor the petitioner's brother or Shahid Aleem was produced in evidence by the petitioner. Thus the very agreement claimed by the petitioner did not stand proved.
5. As regard the payment of consideration, the petitioner's counsel has relied upon the receipt appearing at page-9 of C.M.A. No.816-K/2016. It was admitted by the learned ASC that this very receipt was not produced in evidence and did not form part of the record of the original suit. He however, complained that petitioner ought to have been allowed to produce evidence before the appellate Court. We are afraid that such an argument of the petitioner's counsel is not sustainable and that this very question has very elaborately been dealt with by the learned Division Bench of the High Court. Nothing has been shown to us on the basis of which the impugned judgment can be interfered by us, which is unexceptionable. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave refused. MWA/M-55/SC Petition dismissed.