| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 1477 2023 CLC 812 2023 SLD 1477 |
Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench
Civil Revisions Nos.124 and 125 of 2006, decided on 15thOctober, 2021.Dates of hearing: 25th January, 8th, 15thFebruary, 15th and 18th March, 2021.
Before Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, J
Kalandar Bakhsh M. Phulpoto for Applicants (in Civil Revision No.124 of 2006).A.M. Mobeen Khan for
Respondents Nos.1 to 8 (in Civil Revision No.124 of 2006).Nemo for
Respondent No.9 (in Civil Revision No.124 of 2006).Kalandar Bakhsh M. Phulpoto for
Civil Revisions Nos.124 and 125 of 2006, decided on 15thOctober, 2021.Dates of hearing: 25th January, 8th, 15thFebruary, 15th and 18th March, 2021.
Before Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, J
Kalandar Bakhsh M. Phulpoto for Applicants (in Civil Revision No.124 of 2006).A.M. Mobeen Khan for
Respondents Nos.1 to 8 (in Civil Revision No.124 of 2006).Nemo for
Respondent No.9 (in Civil Revision No.124 of 2006).Kalandar Bakhsh M. Phulpoto for
SAJJAD ALI and others----ApplicantsVersusABDUL HAMEED and others----Respondents
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 17,79
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17 79---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Sale consideration---Proof---Scribe of document---Status---Applicants/plaintiffs sought specific performance of agreement to sell regarding suit property in their favour---Suit and appeal were concurrently dismissed by two Courts below---Validity---Onus was on applicants/plaintiffs to prove sale transaction in respect of suit property, which they had failed to prove---Plea of applicants/plaintiffs that scribe of document was also witness to entire proceedings had no force---Mandatory requirement as envisaged in Arts.17 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, were not complied with--- No sale consideration was given as claimed by respondents/defendants, disproving claim of applicants/plaintiffs---Suit filed by applicants/plaintiffs for specific performance was a frivolous litigation and was also barred by limitation---High Court in exercise of revision jurisdiction declined to interfere in s and decrees passed by two Courts below as there was no material irregularity and illegality existed in of Lower Appellate Court---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. Sikandar Ali and 2 others v. Baddar-u-Din and 4 others 2019 CLC 1046; Muhammad Bashir v. Muhammad Sarwar and 2 others 2016 MLD 594; Muhammad Sher v. Maula Bakhsh 2014 CLC 1745; Muhammad Rafiq v. Muhammad Zahur Nasir and others PLD 1956 Lah. 354; Muhammad Sharif and another v. Malik Abdul Razzaq and others 2011 MLD 736; Dr. Major Abdul Ahad Khan through his Legal Representatives v. Muhammad Iqbal through his Legal Representatives PLD 1989 Kar. 102; Miss. Shama Ahsan v. Province of Sindh and 6 others PLD 1984 Kar. 195; Government of N.W.F.P. and others v. Akbar Shah and others 2010 SCMR 1408; Muhammad Sami v. Additional District Judge, Sargodha and 2 others 2007 SCMR 621; Farid Bakhsh v. Jind Wadda and others 2015 SCMR 1044; Farzand Ali and another v. Khuda Bakhsh and others PLD 2015 SC 187; Messrs Kuwait National Real Estate Company (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Messrs Educational Excellence Ltd. and another 2020 SCMR 171; Muhammad Yaqub v. Muhammad Nasrullah Khan and others PLD…
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