Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 59,60,133

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: 54

Law: Stamp Act, of 1899

Section: 35

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.115---Revision before High Court---Non-appending requisite record with petition---Validity---Petitioner would be bound to annex with revision petition, pleadings, evidence (oral and documentary) and s/decrees of courts below---Revision could be dismissed for non-filing therewith requisite record, but High Court in exceptional cases could decline to do so---Principles. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 59, 60 & 133---Comparison of defendant's questioned thumb impression with his admitted thumb impression through Handwriting Expert by order of court---Both such thumb impressions not be similar in opinion of such Expert, who filed his report in court, which recorded his statement and he was cross-examined by plaintiff---Plaintiff's application for allowing him to produce another Expert in rebuttal of such expert evidence produced by defendant---Validity---Report of Finger Print Expert for being an opinion would not be binding upon the court---Plaintiff in application had not shown the name of another expert---Plaintiff had failed to gain anything in cross-examination from such expert, thus, there was no necessity to allow him to produce another Expert to give report and evidence to rebut evidence of Expert produced in court---Such application was dismissed in circumstanced. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.12---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.54---Stamp Act (II of 1899), S.35---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.2---Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of land---Valid contract---Scope---Such agreement written on a simple paper of some diary and not containing thumb impression or signature of plaintiff-vendee---Evidentiary value---Offer and acceptance reduced into writing, if not signed or thumb marked by one of the parties, could not be termed as a valid "contract" enforceable under law---Suit agreement, if presented in evidence without stamp duty, would be liable to be impounded and would have a little evidentiary value---Suit agreement for suffering from a fatal defect would not constitute a valid contract. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE:---.---…

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