| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1999 SLG 540 1999 SLD 540 1999 SCMR 2605 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1557-L of 1998, decision dated: 2-12-1998. (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 28-7-1998 passed in Regular First Appeal No. 78/91)
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN AND MUNIR A. SHEIKH, JJ
Mahfuzul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1557-L of 1998, decision dated: 2-12-1998. (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 28-7-1998 passed in Regular First Appeal No. 78/91)
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN AND MUNIR A. SHEIKH, JJ
Mahfuzul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent
ZAHEER AHMED QURESHI through Legal Heirss
VS
Syed IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH
Law:
Section:
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S. 12---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell property---Burden to _ prove issue as to execution of agreement to sell---Trial Court after hearing arguments decreed suit filed by plaintiff/vendee holding vendee entitled to recover possession from vendors/defendants---Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court were upheld by High Court in appeal filed by defendants/vendees---Vendors who denied execution of agreement of sale, had contended that burden to prove issue as to execution of agreement of sale was wrongly placed on defendants/vendors as same was to be placed on plaintiff/vendee and said wrong placing of onus to prove had seriously prejudiced case of defendants---Objection to placing onus to prove said issue was not raised by defendants /vendors either before Trial Court at time of framing of issues or any time thereafter---Placing of onus to prove issue on defendants/vendors otherwise was inconsequential as despite the fact that onus of issue was on defendants/vendor, plaintiffs/vendee was called upon to produce his evidence first, who produced the . evidence accordingly--Defendants/vendors had also failed to show as to how their case was prejudiced by placing onus to prove issue on them---Concurrent findings of fact recorded by Trial Court and High Court based on material on record were not shown to be suffering from any misreading or non-reading---Such concurrent finding of fact could not be interfered with by Supreme Court---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Mehr Din through Legal Heirs v. Dr. Bashir Ahmad Khan and 2 others 1985 SCMR 1 and Zakaullah Khan v. Muhammad Aslam and another 1991 SCMR 2126 ref. (b) Evidence--- ----When both the parties have led their evidence on an issue placing of onus to prove on one or the other party loses significances as the issue is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence. ORDER KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance, filed by the respondent, of agreement to sell dated 2-3-1986 statedly executed by Mst. Nasreen…
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