2011 SCMR 921 (PLP)
AZIZ AHMED and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 921 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | AZIZ AHMED and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 921 (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 2011 SCMR 921 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 921 (PLP) (AZIZ AHMED and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahazad Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmud-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 1222-L and 1223-L of 2006).
- Nemo for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 1227-L and 1228-L of 2006).
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 1461-L of 2006).
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1 (in C.P. No. 1222-L of 2006).
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.2 (in C.P. No. 1223-L of 2006).
- Sajjad Mehmood Sh., Advocate Supreme Court (on behalf of Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court) and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent , No. 2 (in C.P. No. 1222-L of 2006).
- Sajjad Mehmood Sh., Advocate Supreme Court (on behalf of Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court) and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1 (in C.P. No. 1223-L of 2006).
- Sajjad Mehmood Sh., Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1 (in C.P. No. 1227-L of 2006).
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1 (in C.P. No. 1228-L of 2006).
- Sajjad Mehmood Sh., Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1 (in C.P. 1461-L of 2006).
- 7. Besides the admission of the owners regarding execution of the sale agreement dated 7-1-1989 (Exh-P.4) in favour of Saif Nadeem Electro, it had been found from the evidence. adduced by the said purchaser that it had successfully established the execution of the said document through Muhammad Akhtar and Maqbool Ahmed, P.W.2 and P.W.5, respectively, who were the marginal witnesses of the said document as also through the testimony offered by Mr. Mushtaq Butt, Advocate (P.W.3) who had scribed the same. On the strength of the testimony of Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.1) who was a representative of the National Bank of Pakistan, it had also been concurrently found that the said Saif Nadeem Electro had paid Rs.9,50,000, as earnest money, to the owners through Exh.P.1, Exh.P.2 and Exh.P.3.
- 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners i.e. for the owners of land and for the rival-purchaser could not point out any illegality in the said concurrent findings nor could it be shown to us that the said findings were based on misreading of any evidence or suffered from non-reading of any part thereof. The only other ground canvassed by Mr. Shahzad Shaukat, the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the owners was that the suit filed by Saif Nadeem Electro Limited had been unauthorisedly filed as no resolution of the company was placed on record authorizing its Chairman to file the same. When confronted with the issues framed at the trial, the said learned counsel admitted that no issue stood struck vis-a-vis the said question nor had any such issue ever been claimed by the owners-defendants. In this view of the matter, this submission of the learned Advocate Supreme Court was misplaced.
- 12. Before we part with this order, we would like to bring on record that C.P.L.As. Nos.1227-L and 1228-L of 2006 had been filed by one of the above-mentioned co-owners, namely, Muhammad Siddique who was a minor at the time of filing of the suits in question. These petitions had been filed by Mr. Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record and Mr. Tariq Munir Malik, the learned Advocate Supreme Court appears to have been engaged to assist this Court on his behalf. No one, however, appeared to prosecute these petitions which petitions are accordingly dismissed for., non-prosecution which is only a technical dismissal for non-prosecution because, as would appear from the above, the merits of the case vis-a-vis all the owners had been presented before us at some length and we had examined the said merits relating to all the owners, in some depth.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 19-4-2006 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in R.F.As. No. 462 of 2004, 31, 36, 61 and.62 of 2005).
S.12
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXIX, R.1 & O.XXXII, R.1
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Specific performance of agreement to sell
Suit was filed by a company seeking specific performance of agreement to sell on the ground that defendants did not perform their part of contract
Trial Court as well as Appellate Court concurrently decreed the suit
Plea raised by defendants was that one of the co-owners was minor and agreement to sell was signed by his mother on his behalf without being declared as guardian furthermore the suit was filed without any resolution of plaintiff company
Both the Courts below rightly declared that agreement on behalf of minor had been executed by his mother who was de facto guardian
Mother of the minor was subsequently appointed de jure guardian of the minor by Guardian Judge, especially for the purpose of sale of land in question in favour of plaintiff company and Guardian Judge even granted permission to the mother with respect to sale in question
Defendants could not point out any illegality. in concurrent findings nor could it be shown that the findings were based on misreading or non-reading of any part of evidence
No issue was framed at trial regarding authority to file suit by plaintiff company nor any such issue had ever been claimed by defendants
Supreme Court declined to interfere in concurrent judgments and decrees passed by two courts below
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
Saif Nadeem Electro (Pvt.) Limited (hereinafter called the respondent-purchaser) filed a suit in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore seeking performance of the sale agreement dated 7-1-1989. The suit was filed on 30-4-1990. Aziz Ahmed and others (hereinafter-called the owners) did not deny the execution of the said sale agreement but pleaded that it was the said respondent-purchaser who had defaulted in payment of the balance amount of consideration and had consequently failed to secure the execution and registration of the requisite sale-deed.
2. During the pendency of this suit, one Muhammad Ramzan (hereinafter called the rival-purchaser) also filed a suit in the Court of the same learned Senior Civil Judge against the same owners, seeking specific performance of a sale agreement dated 28-3-1990 allegedly executed by the said owners in favour of the said rival-purchaser with respect to the same land. When Saif Nadeem Electro came to know of the filing of the said suit by the said rival-purchaser, they made an application praying that they be impleaded as a party in the said suit filed by the said Ramzan rival-purchaser, which application was allowed whereafter both the said suits were consolidated and tried together.
3. As a result of the said trial and through a consolidated judgment dated 20-10-2004, the suit of Saif Nadeem Electro purchaser was decreed. The said purchaser was directed to deposit the balance amount of sale price within thirty days and the owners were directed to execute the sale deed in its favour failing which the said purchaser was declared entitled for the execution and registration of the requisite sale deed through the process of Court. Through the same judgment, the suit filed by the rival-purchaser Ramzan was partly decreed but only to the extent of return of the earnest money paid by him to the owners and with respect to the remaining part of the relief, the said suit was dismissed.
4. The owners of the land as also the above-mentioned rival-purchaser filed Regular First Appeals before the Lahore High Court which were all dismissed through a consolidated judgment dated 19-4-2006 passed in Regular First Appeal No.462 of 2004.
5. The owners and the said rival-purchaser are now before us through various petitions questioning the said concurrent findings of the two courts.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the record with their assistance.
7. Besides the admission of the owners regarding execution of the sale agreement dated 7-1-1989 (Exh-P.4) in favour of Saif Nadeem Electro, it had been found from the evidence. adduced by the said purchaser that it had successfully established the execution of the said document through Muhammad Akhtar and Maqbool Ahmed, P.W.2 and P.W.5, respectively, who were the marginal witnesses of the said document as also through the testimony offered by Mr. Mushtaq Butt, Advocate (P.W.3) who had scribed the same. On the strength of the testimony of Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.1) who was a representative of the National Bank of Pakistan, it had also been concurrently found that the said Saif Nadeem Electro had paid Rs.9,50,000, as earnest money, to the owners through Exh.P.1, Exh.P.2 and Exh.P.3.
8. Analysing the testimony of Shahnawaz (P.W.6) who was allegedly the stamp vendor and the scribe of the agreement in favour of the rival-purchaser; the testimony of Hassan Muhammad Naqvi (P.W.7) who claimed to be a marginal witness of the said sale agreement (Exh.P.W.1/1) and the statement of Bilal Ahmed (P.W.8) who had appeared as the attorney of the said Ramzan rival-purchaser, both the Courts had found that the rival-purchaser had neither been able to prove the execution of the sale agreement in question dated 28-3-1990 allegedly executed by the owners in his favour nor could the said rival-purchaser prove the payment of earnest money with respect to the said alleged transaction. Both the Courts also found that the admission of the owners vis-a-vis the execution of the above-mentioned, sale agreement in favour of the rival-purchaser namely, Muhammad Ramzan or their admission regarding receipt of Rs.21,09,270 as earnest money, could be pressed into service only against the owners and not against Saif Nadeem Electro who had specifically claimed that the said alleged sale agreement was a result of the collusion between the owners and the said Ramzam and that the said claim had been set up only to defeat the rights which had accrued to the said Saif Nadeem Electro.
9. Vis-a-vis the minority of one of the co-owners, namely, Siddique, the two Courts were again unanimous in declaring, and rightly so that the agreement on his behalf had been executed by his mother who was the de facto guardian who had been, subsequently, specifically appointed by the learned Guardian Judge as the de jure guardian of the said minor especially .for the purpose of sale of the land in question in favour of Saif Nadeem Electro and with respect to which sale, the said learned Guardian Judge had even granted permission to the said guardian.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners i.e. for the owners of land and for the rival-purchaser could not point out any illegality in the said concurrent findings nor could it be shown to us that the said findings were based on misreading of any evidence or suffered from non-reading of any part thereof. The only other ground canvassed by Mr. Shahzad Shaukat, the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the owners was that the suit filed by Saif Nadeem Electro Limited had been unauthorisedly filed as no resolution of the company was placed on record authorizing its Chairman to file the same. When confronted with the issues framed at the trial, the said learned counsel admitted that no issue stood struck vis-a-vis the said question nor had any such issue ever been claimed by the owners-defendants. In this view of the matter, this submission of the learned Advocate Supreme Court was misplaced.
11. Having thus examined all aspects of the matter, we find no merit in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.
12. Before we part with this order, we would like to bring on record that C.P.L.As. Nos.1227-L and 1228-L of 2006 had been filed by one of the above-mentioned co-owners, namely, Muhammad Siddique who was a minor at the time of filing of the suits in question. These petitions had been filed by Mr. Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record and Mr. Tariq Munir Malik, the learned Advocate Supreme Court appears to have been engaged to assist this Court on his behalf. No one, however, appeared to prosecute these petitions which petitions are accordingly dismissed for., non-prosecution which is only a technical dismissal for non-prosecution because, as would appear from the above, the merits of the case vis-a-vis all the owners had been presented before us at some length and we had examined the said merits relating to all the owners, in some depth. M.H./A-57/SC Petitions dismissed.