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

Section: 55

Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)

Section:

  Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 129---Party not appearing in support of its assertions made in its pleadings---Effect---Ordinarily party to suit must enter witness-box in order to make statement in support of its pleadings and depose to facts exclusively within its knowledge---Contesting parties must undergo test of cross-examination for ascertaining truth or otherwise of their claims failing which adverse presumption could be drawn against them under Art.129, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Where there was sufficient material on record to prove fact in issue, then mere failure of party to enter witness-box to prove same fact was not fatal to his case. - [Witness-Evidence]. Muhabbat v. Abdullah and 9 others PLD 1970 Lah. 303 rel. Allah Ditta v. Mst. Bhagan and others AIR 1930 Lah. 401; Haji Abdullah Khan and others v. Nisar Muhammad Khan and others PLD 1959 (W.P.) Pesh. 81; Mst. Khatoon Begum v. Mst. Barkat-un-Nisa Begum and 6 others PLD 1987 Kar. 132; Mian Muhammad Saleem and others v. Mst. Hameeda Begum and others 1987 SCMR 624; Mohabbat v. Abdullah and 9 others PLD 1970 Lah. 303; Hakim Ghulam Rasool v. Sh. Ghulam Hussain and others PLD 1968 Lah. 501; Abdul Majid and others v. Khalil Ahmad PLD 1955 FC 38 and Pathana v. Mst. Wasai and another PLD 1965 SC 134 ref. Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 30---Admission---Facts admitted need not to be proved. Contract Act (IX of 1872)-- ----S. 55---Contract relating to immovable property-- -Time specified in deed of contract whether of the essence of contract---Where contract pertained to sale of, immovable property, time was not of essence of contract between parties.   Seth Essabhoy v. Saboor Ahmad PLD 1973 SC 39 rel. Municipal Committee, Sialkot v. Muhammad Shaft 1985 CLC 50 ref. Contract Act (IX of 1872)-- ----S. 55---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100---Specific Relief Act (I' of 1877), S.12---Second appeal---Contract relating to sale of immovable property-- Time specified whether essence of the contract---Time was although specified in deed of contract yet same could not be deemed to be essence of contract-- Plaintiffs thus justified in asserting that demarcation of property in…