| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4635 = 2026 SLD 4635 = 2026 SCP |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions No.1971 and 2395 of 2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in C.Rs. No.257 & 272/2019)
Presented By: Justice Yahya Afridi, CJ Justice Irfan Saadat Khan Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Barrister Umar Aslam, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR (in C.P. No.1971/2022)
Civil Petitions No.1971 and 2395 of 2022 (Against the judgment dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in C.Rs. No.257 & 272/2019)
Presented By: Justice Yahya Afridi, CJ Justice Irfan Saadat Khan Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Barrister Umar Aslam, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR (in C.P. No.1971/2022)
Bashir Ahmad (in C.P. No.1971/2022) Javed Iqbal (in C.P. No.2395/2022) …Petitioners
VERSUS
Javed Iqbal and others (in C.P. No.1971/2022) Muhammad Saleem and others (in C.P. No.2395/2022) …Respondents
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
Section: 177, 84
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section: 115
Law: Contract Act, 1872
Section: 17
Summary The Supreme Court dismissed both petitions for leave to appeal and upheld the Islamabad High Court’s judgment. It held that the agreement to sell was enforceable against Bashir Ahmed for Plot No. 312 because he expressly admitted its execution and receipt of earnest money, but it could not be enforced against Muhammad Saleem for Plot No. 311 because his execution of the agreement was not proved by reliable evidence. The composite agreement was treated as severable: failure of proof against one co-seller did not release the other co-seller from his admitted obligation. Core points Javed Iqbal agreed on 19.03.2002 to purchase Plots No. 311 and 312, Margalla Town Phase-II, Islamabad, for Rs. 1,400,000. He paid Rs. 220,000 as earnest money and deposited CDA installments through two pay orders of Rs. 90,000 each. Bashir Ahmed admitted that he executed the agreement concerning his Plot No. 312 and received earnest money. Muhammad Saleem denied signing the agreement or receiving any earnest money regarding Plot No. 311. The FIA handwriting report was inconclusive because sufficient admitted signatures/specimen material was unavailable for comparison. The plaintiff failed to prove Muhammad Saleem’s signatures/thumb impressions through convincing independent evidence; even the marginal witnesses did not support execution against him. The agreement was enforceable against Bashir Ahmed because his contractual obligation concerned his distinct property and was severable from Muhammad Saleem’s alleged obligation. Time was not treated as being of the essence in this immovable-property transaction because no clear stipulation or resulting prejudice was established. Bashir Ahmed could not allege default by the plaintiff where the evidence showed the plaintiff had deposited the CDA installments and Bashir Ahmed had not fulfilled his reciprocal obligations for transfer. Both CPLA No. 1971/2022 and CPLA No. 2395/2022 were dismissed; leave to appeal was refused. Law and sections Law / Provision Principle applied by the Court Application in this case Article 177, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 The burden lies on the party asserting a fact or document to…