7. This is a case where plaintiff sought decree on the basis of oral agreement. The decree as prayed for in the plaint could be issued in favour of the plaintiff provided he would have firstly mentioned in the plaint:
(i) the date, month, time and name of persons before whom the oral agreement stood concluded;
(ii) the complete details of the terms and conditions of sale; and,
(iii) a satisfactory explanation for not reducing the terms and conditions of sale into writing and thereafter corroborate the same through reliable oral and as well as documentary evidence.
The above requirements of law were not complied with by the plaintiff. In fact the plaint was silent about all the above cited necessary details of the oral agreement to sell. This omission was fatal. The evidence which was led by the plaintiff was beyond pleadings and, therefore, it could not be read and relied upon. The documentary evidence was also not brought on record through witnesses and therefore, the same as per principle settled in the case of “Khan Muhammad Yousaf Khan Khattak V. S.M Ayub and 2 others” (PLD 1973 SC 160), “Messrs Aluminium Processing Industries International (Pvt.) Ltd., through Director and Chairman and another Karach. V. Federation of Pakistan through Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others” (2003 PTD 1411) and “Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and another V. Jaffar Khan and others” (PLD 2010 SC 604) could not be taken into consideration by the court. Even otherwise documents produced by the plaintiff were not title documents and, therefore, were of no significance. These aspects of the case were taken into consideration by the learned trial court and, thus, it rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Since, the learned first appellate court proceeded on incorrect premises, its judgment and decree are not valid.
Part of judgment
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI
Civil Revision
75-D-10
| 2017 LHC 2119 |
0 comments:
Post a Comment