2009 PLP 105 (YLR)

SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.

The backdrop of the present controversy is that the petitioner filed a suit qua the disputed property claiming that he is in possession thereof, the suit after contest was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereof the petitioner filed an-appeal. The parties to the dispute entered into a compromise, pursuant thereto the petitioner paid the balance consideration and the suit of the petitioner was decreed. Latter the respondent resiled from the compromise, therefore, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the oral agreements, dated 14-5-1991 and 24-2-1991. The respondent filed written statement, issues thereafter were framed, parties were put to trial and the suit decreed. The respondent filed an appeal, which was allowed by the lower appellate Court, hence, the present petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended- that the petitioner and the respondent duly entered into an oral agreement in the proceedings before the Court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit, but the lower appellate Court completely misconstrued the same. The petitioner led conclusive oral evidence, which was not properly considered and was ignored, likewise the documentary evidence tendered was also not appraised and deciphered correctly. The paramount documents Exh. P-1, P-2 and P-3 have been illegally ignored, therefore, the impugned judgment is not tenable.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent vigorously defended the impugned judgment and pleaded that as no consideration was paid, therefore, the agreement in question is incomplete and is not a valid and binding contract, therefore, cannot be specifically enforced. The evidence produced by the petitioner is not reliable as witnesses are interested witnesses.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as judgment of the trial Court. The pivotal question for adjudication is whether there is a validly executed agreement inter se the parties or not. The learned trial Court has in this context dwelled in detail Exh. P-1, which was duly signed by the parties in presence of Sh. Zaheer-ud-Din, Advocate. P.W.2 admitted his signatures on the compromise. P.W.3 son of Sh. Zaheer-ud-Din also appeared and identified the signatures of his father. The oral evidence produced fully corroborates these contents of the plaintiffs version, therefore, there is enough material on record to hold that there was a valid and binding contract, especially when it was executed in the proceedings in a Court of law. Contrarily the evidence produced by the respondent merely reflects that it was collusive, thus, there is no denial of the signatures or even the agreement in itself The exception taken by the lower Court to the validity of' the agreement is that no consideration was paid but the matter was reflected upon and appreciated by the trial Court correctly. The ingredients of a valid contract are offer, consideration and acceptance. On the touchstone of these requirements compromise Exh.P-1 is fully established as a valid and binding contract. In these circumstances the impugned judgment is patently illegal and cannot sustain. Resultantly, this petition is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and judgment and decree of the trial Court is restored. No order as to costs. H. B.T. /A-61 /L Petition allowed.