Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

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

Section: 17

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.17---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Proof---Procedure---Preponderance of evidence---Scope---Agreement of sale was required to be proved by two witnesses of execution of agreement---Rule of production of two witnesses as proof of execution of a document was not an absolute rule to be applied in every case---Every case had to be decision date: its own merits both of facts and law---Need to provide proof of execution of agreement would arise when the denial had come from the executant of said agreement---Executant of agreement to sell, in the present case, had admitted the same and also the sale consideration---Each and every aspect of documents produced by the parties was to be assessed while evaluating the evidence---Preponderance of evidence had to be gathered from oral statement with reference to the documents produced by the parties---Trial Court had not examined the evidence properly---Appellate Court had rightly set aside the findings of Trial Court and decreed the suit---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Hafeez and another v. District Judge, Karachi East and another 2008 SCMR 398 ref. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Suit for specific performance---Maintainability---Suit for specific performance would be maintainable only when either of the party had refused to perform his part of contract---Once the two sides of a contract even during the course of litigation agreed to perform their respective obligations under the contract, court would cease to have jurisdiction and it could not pass any order except the order that the suit was dismissed for having become infructuous. THIS JUDGMENT PASSED BY: NAZAR AKBAR, JUSTICE:---.--- This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.5.1992 passed by learned District Judge (West) Karachi, whereby Civil Appeal No.52 of 1988 filed by respondent No.1 was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 9.2.1988 in Suit No.843/1973 passed by IIIrd Senior Civil Judge (West) Karachi in favour of the applicant was set aside. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that…