Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12, 21

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 96, 115 , O.XLI

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 79

Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section:

Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)-- ----Ss. 12 & 21--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), Ss. 96, 115 & O.XLI--Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984), Art. 79--Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 (XVII of 1967)--Suit for Specific performance of agreement to sell--Concurrent findings--Civil revision--Scope--Agreement on stamp paper--Joint khata/ unpartitioned property--Khewat & khatoni entries--readiness & willingness--earnest money recovery--Ex-parte proceedings--Burden of proof--Possession delivered--Subsequent agreement--Pendency of partition suit--Refusal to execute sale deed--Appreciation of evidence--Appeal dismissed--A scribe of a document could only be a competent witness if he had put his signature as an attesting witness of document and not otherwise--It was settled law that so long as attesting witnesses were alive, capable of giving evidence and subject to process of Court, no document could be used in evidence without evidence of such attesting witnesses--If execution of a document was specifically denied, best course was to call attesting witnesses to prove execution--Non-compliance of said requirement rendered document inadmissible in evidence--Neither due process of law was adopted to procure attendance of second marginal witness, nor any evidence was produced to establish that he was residing in Dubai--It was evident that suit property was unidentifiable from contents of agreement to sell and entitlement of specific portion was yet to be decided after partition--Particulars with regard to identity of suit property in agreement (Exh.P-1) lacked certainty and it could not be identified with reasonable certainty, therefore, said agreement was not enforceable in view of principle enshrined under Section 21(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1877 and a decree for specific performance could not be issued--Where under a contract obligation was cast upon a person to perform continuously particular duty for a period longer than three years from date of agreement, same could not be specifically enforced--Interference in revisional jurisdiction could be made only in cases in which order passed or a judgment rendered by a subordinate Court was…