Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 2565 2019 SLD 2565 2019 PLJ 654
Lahore High Court
R.S.A.No. 135 of 2009, heard 05.03.2019.
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD, JAHANGIR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Muqtedir Akhtar Shabir, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Tanveer Bashir and Kashif Shahzad, Advocate No.1.

MUHAMMAD ANDLEEB RAZA

VS

MUHAMMAD NAZAR ETC.

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: 54

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

Section: 17(2),80

Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)-- ----S. 12.--Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 17(2) & 80--Suit for Specific performance--Decreed--Appeal--Dismissed--Sale agreement--Total amount was paid--General power of Attorney was also registered in favour of vendee--Property was transferred through a sale deed in favour of another person--Requirement of law--Delivery of Justice--Challenge to--Admittedly, there is no legal impediment that an agreement has to be registered, but for its construction, it being a document of financial liability and future obligation under provision of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, is required to be attested by two male or one male and two female witnesses, as case may be--Impugned document of contract (Exh.P-1) as per requirement of law was signed by Muhammad Afzal, Sh. Muhammad Rasheed and Malik Muhammad Arif, being its marginal witnesses, which could only be proved until and unless two out of them were examined--Admittedly only Muhammad Afzal (PW2) out of attesting witnesses was produced, whereas latter two were not brought in witness-box by beneficiary/Respondent No.1 and when his learned counsel was faced with situation, he submitted that one of them was not available being settled abroad at time of recording of evidence while other had already been won over by rival party, which was not enough to ignore mandatory provision of law--If one of them was not available, then proper course was to prove his signatures through a person familiar therewith, but admittedly requirements of Article 80 of Order, 1984 were not complied with--Statement of Scribe, report of Expert and Attorney Deed could only be given weight as corroborative evidence, but it cannot be treated as a substitute of required number of attesting witnesses--It would not be out of context to realize well established principle of law that where law provides a procedure for doing a thing in a particular manner then it has to be done in prescribed manner and in no other etiquette or should not be done, as such both Courts handed down their views without considering material in its true perspective and especially relevant law in this behalf, which are vulnerable--Courts…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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