Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: S.115,O.VI,VIII,XX,XLI,R.2,5,31

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

Section: 80

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----S. 115--Suit for specific performance of agreement--Concurrently decreed--Jurisdiction--Challenge to--Although, scope thereof is limited, but such findings can be distressed by this Court, if Courts below appeared to have either misread evidence on record or while assessing evidence had omitted from consideration some important piece of evidence, which had direct bearing on issue involved--It can safely be concluded that both Courts below while misconstruing evidence of parties to lis decreed suit of respondent, who designed Exh.P1 to deprive landlady of her valuable property and verdicts of Courts below being classic example of misreading and non-reading of evidence on record are illegal, unlawful and corum non judice, which cannot be sustained in eye of law--Resultantly, instant Civil Revision is allowed. 2014 SCMR 914, 2016 SCMR 24, ref. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----O. XX, R. 5 & XLI, R. 31--Concurrent findings--Without sensing pleadings and evidence--It was achy for me to observe that both Courts below without sensing pleadings and evidence of parties in its true perspective rendered their concurrent findings in favour of respondent in complete derogation of Order XX rule 5 as well as Order XLI rule 31 of Code, 1908. Cross-examination-- ----Statement of witnesses--It was claim of respondent that bargain was settled on 10.01.2003 and advance amount was paid then and there and in lieu thereof possession changed hands before witnesses, but respondent/beneficiary being PW2 omitted to disclose date of transaction in his statement-in-chief and when he was specifically questioned about it in his cross/examination, he again failed to tell date when sale was struck--This was again surprising that respondent for first time disclosed in his statement that transaction was spontaneously struck through Ghulam Ali at Court premises of Haroon Abad, but one of marginal witnesses, Muhammad Zaman (PW3) antipodal to plaintiff (PW2) stated that sale was settled at Basti Khatal--Disparity with regard to venue among them could neither be treated as minor contradiction nor it can be lightly ignored--Moreover, not…

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