| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLD 439 = 1990 CLC 254 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.933-D of 1989, decided on 21st October, 1989.
Presented By: Before Muhamniad Munir IOiwi, J
Sh. Abdul. Aziz for Petitioners. Akhtai Ali Goraya for
Respondents.
Civil Revision No.933-D of 1989, decided on 21st October, 1989.
Presented By: Before Muhamniad Munir IOiwi, J
Sh. Abdul. Aziz for Petitioners. Akhtai Ali Goraya for
Respondents.
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others--Pefitioners
VERSUS
MUAZZAM ALI and others--Respondents
Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)
Section: 63 , 115
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section:
Evidence Act (I of 1872)-- ---S. 63---Secondary evidence---Application for production of secondary evidence by plaintiff---Defendant, without making prayer for the rejection of application for production of secondary evidence, in his reply expressed his willingness to the production of secondary evidence---Defendant, having raised no objection to the production of document comprising secondary evidence, there was no occas on for the plaintiff to prove the circumstances justifying the receiving of secondary evidence. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ---S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Judgment of Appellate Court as a whole did not suffer from illegality or material irregularity---Revision being devoid of merit was dismissed. Sh. Abdul. Aziz for Petitioners. Akhtai Ali Goraya for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st October, 1989. JUDGMENT On 31-5-1979, Muhammad Sadiq predecessor-in-interest of Mua77am Ali and 4 others, respondents, filed suit for the specific performance of agreement to sell agricultural land measuring 367.Kanals 2 Marlas, against Ghulam Qadh father of Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others, petitioenrs in the Court of Civil Judge, Ferozewala. The suit was resisted whereon following issues were framed:- Whether the plaintiff has performed his part of the agreement? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of agreement, if so, on what terms and conditions? (2A) Whether the receipt dated 30-4-1978 is fictitious, if so its effect? (2B) Whether the suit is improperly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction and if so, its effect and what is the correct valuation? Relief. Muhammad Sadiq deceased plaintiff appeared as PW 6. He produced Rana Ashraf Ali Khan PW 1, Syed Faiz Muhammad, Manager, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan PW 2, Muhammad Ayub PW 3, Inayat Ali PW.4 and PW 5 MA. Nomani Handwriting Expert. He tendered agreement to sell EX.P.1, cheque Ex.P.2, receipt Ex.P.3 and copy of Jamabandi PW.4/1 in evidence. In rebuttal, four witnesses, namely, Ahmad Riaz, Ghulam Sarwar, Muhammad Munir and A.G. Pasha, Handwriting Expert were produced by the petitioners. Asif Qadir petitioner entered the witness box as DW.5. A.G.…