Case Details

Citation(s)
1996 SLG 226 1996 SLD 226 1996 PLD 237
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 931-L of 1994, decision dated: 31st October, 1995. (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 23-6-1994 passed in C.R. 931-D/94).
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND MUNAWAR HUSSAIN SIAL, JJ
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court.

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and ANOTHERS

VS

SAM MUHAMMAD and others Namo ,

Law:

Section:

Oaths Act (X of 1873)-S. 8 --- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) --- Disposal of suit on special oath for which offer was made by plaintiffs and accepted by defendants --- Validity---After offer of special oath made by plaintiffs before Trial Court which was accepted by defendants, plaintiffs could not be allowed to resile from said oath unless they were able to establish that agreement arrived at for disposal of suit in accordance with special oath was either void or frustrated --- No such circumstance being present, suit was rightly disposed of by Trial Court on basis of special oath taken, by specified person ---- No case for interference with order of High Court was made out --- Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Attiqullah v. Kafayatuflah 1981 SCMR 162 rel. JUDGMENT SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioners are seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 23-6-1994 whereby Civil Revision Application No.931-D of 1994 filed by the petitioners was dismissed. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioners instituted a suit before the Civil Court for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of landed property in Mohallah Faridnagar Pakpatan, belonging to the respondents. The suit was contested by respondent No.1 (Sakhi Muhammad) and respondent No.2 (Muhammad Ishaq) who filed joint written statement contending that the suit was collusive between the petitioners and respondent No3 (Mst. Jannat Bibi) and respondent No.4 (Mst. Khurshid Bibi). Respondents Nos.3 and 4 conceded the claim of the petitioners whereupon the trial Court framed following issues in the case:-- "(1) Whether the plaintiffs' suit is collusive with defendants Nos.3 and 4, if so, its effect? OPD 1 & 3. (2) Whether the plaintiffs' suit is not maintainable in view of P.O. No.2 of the written statement? OPD. (3) Whether defendant No.1 executed an agreement of sale of the disputed property to predecessor of plaintiffs and got executed receipt in this respect, if so, its effect? OPP. (4) Relief. No other issue pressed." During pendency of the suit, the petitioners made an offer…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492