2042 PLP 1301 (SCMR)
NOOR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2042 PLP 1301 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Qazi Muhammad Farooq and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2042 PLP 1301 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2042 PLP 1301 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Qazi Muhammad Farooq and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2042 PLP 1301 (SCMR) (NOOR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad , Nisar Arshad Kotla, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th March, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 25‑2‑1999 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No. 248‑D/99). Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 68‑‑‑Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.79‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Execution of document‑‑‑Proof‑‑‑Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below‑‑‑Dispute was with regard to the execution of sale‑deed‑‑‑Petitioners denied execution of the sale‑deed in favour of respondent‑‑‑All the Courts below had concurrently decided the matter in favour of the respondent‑‑‑Contention of the petitioner was that the document had not been proved in accordance with provisions of Art.79 of the Qanun‑e Shahdat, 1984, and the judgments of the Courts below were an outcome of misreading of evidence‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Sale‑deed in question was executed prior to the promulgation of the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat, 1984, therefore, its execution was to be proved in the light of the provisions of S.68 of the erstwhile Evidence Act, 1872, and not under Art.79 of the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat, 1984‑‑ Execution of the sale‑deed was proved in the light of the statement of one of the marginal witnesses and the testimony of the witness was not vulnerable to any .criticism and its effect could not be offset by the ipse dixit of the petitioner‑‑‑No misreading or non‑reading of evidence had been found in the judgments passed by the Courts below‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgments passed by the Courts below‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.‑‑‑The dispute in this petition pertains to ownership of a shop situated in Shahpur City, District Sargodha. The parties are real brothers and it appears from the record that the suit shop was purchased by the respondent Nazar Muhammad by virtue of a registered sale‑deed dated 22‑1‑1979. A suit was filed by the petitioner for a declaration to the effect that the suit shop was owned by him and the sale‑deed dated 22‑1‑1979. in favour of the respondent being fictitious, fabricated d fraudulent was void and ineffective on his rights. After a hot contest the suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 3‑1‑1998 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to substantiate his claim. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed on 22‑12‑1998 by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha and the revision petition filed by him was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide judgment dated 25‑2‑1999. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the High Court had overlooked this glaring fact that the judgments passed by the two Courts below were result of misreading of evidence. He further contended that the execution of the sale‑deed had not. been proved in accordance with the provisions of Article 79 of the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat Order, 1984 (hereinafter ref to as the Order).
3. The contentions have not impressed us. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the judgments of the two Courts below were outcome of misreading of evidence but surprisingly has not highlighted any instance in respect thereof. Be that as it may, we have gone through the judgments rendered by the learned trial Court as well the learned Appellate Court and have not found any misreading or non‑reading of evidence. The sale‑deed in question was executed prior to the promulgation of the Order, therefore, its execution is to be proved in the light of the provisions of section 68 of the erstwhile Evidence Act and not under Article 79 of the Order. The execution of the sale‑deed stands proved in the light of the statement of one of the marginal witnesses Kh. Abdul Waheed (D.W.2). The testimony of the said witness is not vulnerable to any criticism and its effect cannot be offset by the ipse dixit of the petitioner. The petition is, therefore; dismissed and leave refused. Q.M.H./M.A.K./N‑62/S Petition dismissed.