| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLD 3560 |
Civil Revision No.56442 of 2021
Presented By: (Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi) Judge
Date of hearing: 11.05.2026. Petitioners by: Rao Jabbar Khan, Advocate.
Respondents by: M/s. Muhammad Omer Malik, Muhammad Anwar Khan, Arslan Fazil and Wasim Abbas, Advocates (for respondents No.1-A, 1-B & 1-D).
Respondent No.4 ex parte. Nemo for respondents No.1-C, 2 & 3.
Muhammad Imran Arif & others
VERSUS
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf (deceased) through Legal Heirs & others
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section: 115, XIV
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 16(c), 22
Law: Contract Act, 1872
Section: 182–238, 237
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
Section: 79, 113
Tagline
Admission of execution of an agreement dispenses with formal proof; failure to frame material issues regarding authority, partial specific performance, and readiness to perform vitiates the trial and warrants remand.
Summary
The petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 23.01.2008 after paying Rs. 8.5 million as earnest money out of a total sale consideration of Rs. 33 million. Although the trial court accepted payment of earnest money, it refused specific performance and instead ordered refund of the earnest money with 10% annual markup. The appellate court upheld this decision.
The Lahore High Court held that both courts committed material errors of law by ignoring the respondent's categorical admission of execution of the agreement, despite Article 113 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, which provides that admitted facts require no formal proof. The courts also wrongly applied Article 79 regarding proof of attested documents despite the admission.