| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 1757 2022 SLD 1757 2022 PLJ 233 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.P. No. 3367 of 2018, decided on 21.2.2022. (Against the order dated 23.05.2018 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in C.R. No. 401/ 16)
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL AND QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JJ.
Mr. Zaheer Bashir Ansari, ASC for Petitioner. N.R. for
Respondents.
C.P. No. 3367 of 2018, decided on 21.2.2022. (Against the order dated 23.05.2018 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in C.R. No. 401/ 16)
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL AND QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JJ.
Mr. Zaheer Bashir Ansari, ASC for Petitioner. N.R. for
Respondents.
MAH JABEEN ASHFAQ
VS
NOOR MAHI and others
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)-- ----S. 12--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 185(3)--Suit for specific performance--Concurrent findings--Agreement to sale--Non-proving of sale consideration by performance respondent--Subsequent purchaser--Filing of suit by performa respondent after transfer of suit plot--Time-barred--No cause of action--No locus standi--Challenge to--Judge without application of his judicial and independent mind dismissed both appeals in a cursory manner, specially appeal of Respondent No. 1 as payment of sale consideration was not proved by proforma respondent in accordance with Law and despite this important fact burdened Respondent No. 1 to pay back double amount of sale consideration to porforma respondent--When suit is dismissed in toto, penalty of double payment also get buried with suit--Such findings of High Court, visibly against proforma respondent, have not been challenged by him which means that same have attained finality between parties--He bitterly failed to prove proper execution of agreement and payment of sale consideration and this very fact has also been admitted by him in his cross-examination--Trial Court and Appellate was absolutely wrong in their perception by holding that agreement of sale and payment of sale consideration has been proved by proforma respondent--Suit plot was lawfully transferred in name of Respondent No. 2 and same was accordingly incorporated in his name in record of Respondent No. 3--Present petitioner, falling in steps of proforma respondent, cannot question allotment or its sale to Respondent No. 2 and she, as such, has no cause of action and locus standi in this regard--Petition was dismissed. [Pp. 235 , 236] A, B, C , D JUDGMENT Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, J.--The petitioner, being Plaintiff No. 1A in the main suit, through instant petition under article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has questioned the impugned order dated 23rd April, 2018 of the learned Judge-in-Chambers of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad whereby the civil revision, filed by the petitioner and Respondent No. 4 (‘Proforma Respondent’), was dismissed by upholding the…
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