Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 12,54

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

Section: 17,79

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: VII,11

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 12 & 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17 & 79---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Rejecting of plaint---Specific performance of agreement to sell---Proof---Mandatory requirement---Petitioner / defendant was aggrieved of orders passed by two Courts below declining rejection of plaint---Validity---Alleged agreement to sell lacked mandatory requirements under Arts.17 and 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and the same could not be used as evidence---Continuation of proceedings before Trial Court would be nothing but futile exercise of abuse of process of Court, which could not be allowed at the expense of public time, which should be consumed by Court meaningfully in other matters requiring its urgent attention and serious consideration---High Court set aside orders passed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court and rejected the plaint filed by respondent / plaintiff--Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. Black s Law Dictionary, Ramanatha Iyar s Law Lexicon; Aiyar Judicial Dictionary; Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Amin through legal heirs and others PLD 2011 SC 241 and Sikandar Ali and 2 others v. Baddar-ud-Din and 4 others 2019 CLC 1046 ref. ORDER ANWAARUL HAQ PANNUN, J.---Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the vires of the order dated 13.02.2019, dismissing his application under order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore and the order dated 22.10.2020 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore, upholding the above order while dismissing the petitioners revision petition. 2.    The factual background of this case, in brief, is that the plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred as the respondents) filed a suit on 02.05.2009 for specific performance along with perpetual injunction on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 29.12.1998, without citing any witness of the alleged transaction, either in the disputed agreement to sell or in the plaint, against the defendant, their real uncle (hereinafter to be referred as the petitioner); that they have purchased 1/3rd Share out of total land measuring…