Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 1049 1993 SLD 1049 1993 CLC 2316
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 758/D of 1988, heard on 29th Mares 1993
MUNIR A. SHAH, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

SHABBIR AHMAD and Others ers

VS

KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and Others

Law:

Section:

(a) Witness-- ----Evidence .of an illiterate witness ---Evidentiary value--Merely because a witness was illiterate, his evidence could not be brushed aside or ignored on that score unless there was any law or rule which provided that no illiterate person could be a witness in any transaction. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 30---Admission---Admission of execution of a registered document carries presumption of truth which is rebuttable--When such presumption is not rebutted, evidence through admission is not to be believed. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.I, R. 9---Effect of misjoinder---No suit coin fail because of misjoinder of any party in the suit alongwith the person who could maintain such suit in his own right. Mst. Khurshid Begum and 7 others v. Inam Rabbani and another 1979 CLC 570 ref. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Findings, based on misreading of evidence---Interference in revisional jurisdiction---Agreement to sell--Execution---Execution of agreement to sell and other co-related documents had been established through cogent evidence---Finding of Appellate Court below to the contrary was based on acute misreading, misconstruction and non-reading of evidence---Such finding could be set aside in revision. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XLI. R. 33---Spec Relief Act (I of 1870), Ss. 12 & 54---Plaintiff on basis of agreement of sale had filed suit for permanent injunction against defendant which was dismissed by Courts below being not maintainable--­Validity---Plaintiff's suit could not have been dismissed on technical ground that suit should have been filed for spec performance---Relief of specific performance could be granted to plaintiff if evidence on record had established execution of agreement to sell, performance of his part of the agreement and when question of limitation was not involved---Plaintiff's case was a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under O.XLI, R. 33, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for passing decree for specific performance of agreement of sale since all ingredients entitling plaintiff to seek specific performance were established. Mst. Rehmat Bibi and others…
🔒
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