Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

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

Section: 79

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----S. 12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79---Suit for specific performance---Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested---Scope---Plaintiffs claimed ownership of suit property on the basis of allotment by Municipal Corporation (MC) to their predecessor-in-interest whereas the defendant claimed ownership on the basis of sale agreement---Trial Court decreed the suit and the appellate court dismissed the appeal---Validity---Trial Court had addressed and adjudicated all issues in its ---Admittedly, defendant had failed to examine the marginal witnesses to one payment of sale consideration and possession as well as construction---Plaintiffs had submitted certain documents pertaining to lease issued by MC and had got examined the relevant officer of MC---No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence was found in the impugned ---Revision appli-cation was dismissed, in circumstances (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court--- Scope--- Revisional jurisdiction of High Court is limited, unless it is shown that findings of two courts below are illegal and perverse the same will not be disturbed.

Muhammad Idrees v. Muhammad Parvez 2010 SCMR 5 rel.

(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--

----S. 12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79---Suit for specific performance---Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested---Scope---Burden of proof, in a suit for specific performance of contract, always remains upon the beneficiary of document, which burden includes satisfaction of Art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Failure to discharge such burden shall always have its consequences.

Farid Bakhsh v. Jind Wadda 2015 SCMR 1044 rel.

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----S. 12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79---Suit for specific performance---Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested---Scope---Plaintiffs claimed ownership of suit property on the basis of allotment by Municipal Corporation (MC) to their predecessor-in-interest whereas the defendant claimed ownership on the basis of sale agreement---Trial Court decreed the suit and the appellate court dismissed the appeal---Validity---Trial Court had addressed and adjudicated all issues in its judgment---Admittedly, defendant had failed to examine the marginal witnesses to one payment of sale consideration and possession as well as construction---Plaintiffs had submitted certain documents pertaining to lease issued by MC and had got examined the relevant officer of MC---No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence was found in the impugned judgment---Revision appli-cation was dismissed, in circumstances (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court--- Scope--- Revisional jurisdiction of High Court is limited, unless it is shown that findings of two courts below are illegal and perverse the same will not be disturbed.

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