| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1564 2026 SLD 1564 = 2026 SCP 101 = 2026 SCMR 1332 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
CPLA No. 1035 & 1104/2022 [Against judgment dated 26.01.2022 passed in C.R.No.480 of 2015 by Islamabad High Court, Islamabad]
Presented By: MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI, CJ MR. JUSTICE SHAHID BILAL HASSAN
Mr. Muhammad Nazir Jawwad, ASC (in CP 1035 of 2022)
CPLA No. 1035 & 1104/2022 [Against judgment dated 26.01.2022 passed in C.R.No.480 of 2015 by Islamabad High Court, Islamabad]
Presented By: MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI, CJ MR. JUSTICE SHAHID BILAL HASSAN
Mr. Muhammad Nazir Jawwad, ASC (in CP 1035 of 2022)
1. Muhammad Humayun and others (In CPLA No. 1035/2022) 2.Mst. Taj Bibi and another (In CPLA No. 1104/2022) �Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
1.Shafqat Ali Nisar and others (In CPLA No. 1035/2022) 2. Shafqat Ali Nasir & others (In CPLA No. 1104/2022) �Respondent(s)
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
Section: 17, 79,129(g)
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12
Summary The Supreme Court allowed the petition, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged agreement to sell (dated 22.09.2000) in accordance with Articles 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 because the attesting (marginal) witnesses were not produced and no explanation was offered; given that the contract was disputed, this failure attracted an adverse presumption under Article 129(g), and, together with intervening third-party transfers recognized by the CDA, meant the plaintiff was not entitled to the discretionary equitable relief of specific performance. The decrees of the lower courts were set aside and the suit dismissed. Core points Subject property: Plot No.1060 (272 sq. yards) Sector E-12/3, Islamabad, originally owned by Mst. Taj Bibi. Plaintiff’s case: Agreement to sell dated 22.09.2000 for Rs.600,000, paid in full; three GPAs executed; suit for specific performance filed 21.03.2005 after vendor allegedly refused transfer. Defendants’ case: Agreement forged, barred by limitation; lawful chain of title — sale to third parties and CDA transfer in June 2004; purchase was bona fide without notice. Trial and appellate history: Trial Court decreed suit (30.01.2013); Appellate Court dismissed defendants’ appeal (15.05.2015); Islamabad High Court dismissed civil revision (26.01.2022); Supreme Court granted leave and heard the petition. Key evidentiary failure: Marginal/attesting witnesses to the agreement were not produced and no explanation offered despite denial of execution by defendants. Legal consequence: Non-production of attesting witnesses rendered the document legally unproved; adverse presumption under Article 129(g) arose. Discretionary relief: Specific performance is equitable and discretionary; court must consider conduct, delay and surrounding circumstances before granting it. Outcome: Supreme Court set aside lower courts’ judgments, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, parties to bear their own costs. Law and sections Law / Authority Section / Article What it requires / provides Relevance in this case Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 Article 17 (esp. 17(2)(a)) Documents required by law to be…