1985 PLP 1382 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1382 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1382 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1382 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1382 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Abdullah Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner sought specific performance of a contract to sell land. The respondent resisted on the ground that in the garb of getting a lease deed executed the petitioner had subjected him to fraud and got an agreement to sell executed. The trial Court upheld the plea of the respondent so did the first appellate Court and the High Court in second appeal. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 10th of February, 1980. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the evidence produced by the plaintiff‑respondent was all hearsay and not worthy of credit. On such an evidence his defence could not succeed. According to the learned counsel it is a case of no evidence. The fact that the respondent has been adjudged by the Courts) to be an illiterate and simpleton is not disputed. It is also not disputed before us that the entries in the Khasra Girdawari show the petitioner not as a prospective vendee but as a lessee. None of the witness whose statement the learned counsel has been able to read out to us stated in specific terms that the agreement to sell the land was read out, explained and was understood by the respondent. In such a situation, the Court could justifiably hold that the agreement to sell, which the petitioner wanted to utilise was a tainted document and relief could be refused to him on its weakness. There is no question of law to be examined further. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. M. I. Leave refused.