1998 PLP 346 (SCMR)
AHMED HASSAN KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAVEED ABBAS and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 346 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | AHMED HASSAN KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAVEED ABBAS and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 346 (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 1998 PLP 346 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 346 (SCMR) (AHMED HASSAN KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAVEED ABBAS and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Shakoor, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Zafar Iqbal Ch., Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th January, 1997.
- On the other hand, Mr. Zafar Iqbal Ch. learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents, has urged that the petitioner had not pointed out to the High Court at the time of hearing of the above F. R. A. that any other R. F. A. was pending and, therefore, it will not be just and proper to remand the case now particularly when the matter stands finally concluded. His further submission was that in support of the alleged sale transaction the petitioner failed to prove any sale agreement and the, payment of consideration and hence the concurrent finding of the two Courts cannot be disturbed.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 11‑3‑1996 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Regular First Appeal No.268 of 1994). ‑‑‑‑S. 12‑‑‑Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 84‑‑‑Suit on basis of sale agreement‑‑‑Sale agreement and payment of consideration having not been proved by plaintiff, Trial Court and High Court had rightly dismissed plaintiff's suit which finding could not be disturbed‑‑‑Plaintiff's contention that suit filed by defendants for possession was still pending adjudication therefore, disposal of his appeal was not warranted, could not be entertained for it was for plaintiff to have requested High Court to dispose of both appeals together‑‑‑Plaintiff's second contention that there was sufficient material on record to prove factum that defendants had agreed to sell property in question, was of no consequence for his failure to produce any sale agreement‑‑‑Plaintiff had solely relied upon alleged receipt of specified amount which appeared to have been signed by only one defendant‑‑‑Plaintiff attempted to prove receipt in question by producing two witnesses but Courts had rightly disbelieved them‑‑‑Comparison of signatures on receipt with admitted signatures of defendant showed that they were not signed by the same person‑‑‑Other striking dissimilarities in spellings etc. also existed‑‑‑Concurrent findings of two Courts below seemed to be in consonance with evidence on record‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11-3-1996 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in R.F.A. No.268 of 1994, filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 30-10-1994 of the learned Civil Judge, Kamalia, dismissing the petitioner's suit for declaration (Civil Suit No.212-1 of 1992), in the alternative for specific performance of the sale agreement and decreeing the respondents' suit for possession (Civil Suit No.537-1 of 1989), dismissing the same by maintaining the above dismissal judgment/decree.
2. The brief facts are that the respondents filed their suit in 1989 for the above relief; whereas the petitioner filed his suit in 1992 for the above decree. The aforesaid suits were contested by each other inasmuch as written statements were filed. The learned Civil Judge framed as many 13 issues in both the suits. Both the suits were heard together and decided by the above common judgment by the learned Civil Judge in the aforesaid terms. He concluded that the petitioner failed to prove the factum that the respondents agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.1,05,
000. It was further concluded that the petitioner also failed to prove the factum of payment of Rs.5,000 or Rs.1,00,000 towards the sale consideration. It was also found that the petitioner was in permissive possession.
3. Against the above judgment, two Regular First Appeals were filed by the petitioner, Regular First Appeal relating to the dismissal of the petitioner's suit has been disposed of through the impugned judgment; whereas according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the other Regular First Appeal remains pending. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
4. In support of the above petition Ch. Abdul Shakoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, has firstly contended that since the other Regular First Appeal is still pending before the High Court, this case may be remanded to the High Court. Secondly, he contended that there was sufficient material to prove the factum that the respondents agreed to sell the suit property to the petitioner. On the other hand, Mr. Zafar Iqbal Ch. learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents, has urged that the petitioner had not pointed out to the High Court at the time of hearing of the above F. R. A. that any other R. F. A. was pending and, therefore, it will not be just and proper to remand the case now particularly when the matter stands finally concluded. His further submission was that in support of the alleged sale transaction the petitioner failed to prove any sale agreement and the, payment of consideration and hence the concurrent finding of the two Courts cannot be disturbed.
5. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be entertained as it was for the petitioner to have requested the High Court to dispose of both the F.R.As. together. As regards the second submission, it seems that the suit property is owned jointly by respondents Nos.1 and 2, son and mother respectively. It appears that the petitioner filed his suit for the above relief after nearly three years from the filing of the suit by the respondents, though the petitioner alleged that he had purchased the suit property. He had not produced any sale agreement. The petitioner had solely relied upon the alleged receipt for the payment of Rs.1,05,000 allegedly signed by respondent No.2 alone. He attempted to prove the alleged receipt by producing two witnesses but the Courts below have rightly disbelieved them as they are not witnesses to the same. We have compared the respondent No.2's signatures on the above receipt (at page 54 of the paper book) with the admitted signatures on the power of attorney (at page 52 of the paper book). Apparently, the same are not signed by the same person inasmuch as in the power of attorney, the word Parven has been written with one "e", whereas on the receipt, two "e" have been used. There are other striking dissimilarities. The concurrent finding of the two Courts below seems to be in consonance with the evidence on record. Leave is refused. A. A./A-1/S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.