| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 1099 2010 SLD 1099 2010 PLJ 262 |
Lahore High Court
C.R. No. 1804 of 2004, hearing Date : 30.06.2009.
ABDUL SATTAR GORAYA, JUSTICE
Shehzada Muhammad Zeshan Mirza, Advocate for Petitioners. Mian Mumtaz Hussain, Advocate for
Respondents.
C.R. No. 1804 of 2004, hearing Date : 30.06.2009.
ABDUL SATTAR GORAYA, JUSTICE
Shehzada Muhammad Zeshan Mirza, Advocate for Petitioners. Mian Mumtaz Hussain, Advocate for
Respondents.
BASHIR AHMAD AND 21 OTHERS
VS
SHAH MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----S. 115--Civil revision--Necessary ingredients of contract were not mentioned in plaint--Suit for specific performance of an agreement--Suit was dismissed and appeal was accepted--Challenge to--Agreement of sale was entered between the parties 20/22 years ago--Not a case of documentary evidence and the case of respondents hinges on oral evidence--Validity--In plaint the date of agreement and remaining necessary ingredients had not been disclosed and matter had been confined only to extent into agreement of sale--Held: If ingredients necessary to be mentioned in the plaint were not mentioned, no evidence can be led on this point--Revision was accepted. 1996 SCMR 336, ref. Oral Agreement-- ----Conditions of valid agreement, which ought to have been pleaded in plaint to enforce the desired contract, Held: If an oral agreement, the terms and conditions are not satisfied it cannot be considered to be valid in law. 2007 CLC 1372, fol. Agreement-- ----Mere agreement of sale does not confer any ownership right. Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908)-- ----S. 113--Barred by time--Issue of sale was postponed for considerable period of 16 years--No part of the amount was left to be paid--Suitor never made him available to file suit--First Appellate Court in impugned and decree framed summary of facts and by picking a portion of the evidence of witness box based his decision to benefit of the suitor and in fact new case had been built up to advantage of respondent which otherwise was not spelt out from record--Appellate Court committed serious illegalities and irregularities ad-infinitum in reaching at impugned conclusion--Revision was accepted. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: ABDUL SATTAR GORAYA, JUSTICE---.--- This petition under Section 115, CPC calls in question the judgment and decree dated 3.06.2004 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Ferozewala District Sheikhupura. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner filed a suit for Specific Performance of an agreement. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff entered into agreement of sale with the petitioners-defendants 16 years ago in respect of land, the details…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492