PLJ 2021 Lahore (Note) 7
Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)--
----S. 12--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), S. 2(9), 96 & O. 20, R. 4(2)--Suit for specific performance--Decreed--Agreement to sell--Earnest money was paid--Possession was also delivered--Deniel to execution of registered sale-deed--Onus to prove--Ingredient of judgment--Validity of judgment--Binding of conclusion--Obligation of plaintiff--Challenge to--It was/is duty and obligation of plaintiff beneficiary of a transaction or a document to affirmatively prove same by adducing cogent, relevant, unimpeachable oral as well as documentary evidence and while deciding about a transaction or a document, Court has to discuss in detail oral & documentary evidence of the, beneficiary of a transaction or a document--Trial Court has not only failed to give legal as well as factual reasons or grounds but also failed to consider and discuss evidence of both parties satisfactorily to ensure that trial Court has applied its judicial mind and that findings are based on proper appraisal of evidence on record--Hence, impugned judgment is liable to be reversed as same is not in consonance with requirements of Order XX Rule 4(2) of Civil Procedure Code (Act V) of 1908--Appeal was allowed. [Para 4] B & C
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--
----O.XX, R. 4(2)--Definition of judgment--Word “judgment” is defined in Section 2(9) as “the statement given by Judge of grounds of decree or order”. [Para 4] A
Mr. Abdul Samad Ali and Ch. Muhammad Siddique Gujjar, Advocates for Appellants.
Mr. Saghir Ahmad Bhatti, Advocate for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 7.6.2016.
PLJ 2021 Lahore (Note) 7
[Multan Bench Multan]
Present: Shahid Bilal Hassan and Masud Abid Naqvi, JJ.
versus
GULAB DIN etc.--Respondents
R.F.A. No. 11 of 2011, dated on 7.6.2016.
Judgment
Masud Abid Naqvi, J.--Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this lis are that predecessor in interest of present respondents namely Ghulab Din filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell with regard to land measuring 99-kanals & 02-marlas (properly described in the plaint) with the averments that the appellants/defendants agreed to sell the suit land to him by Executing an agreement to sell dated 17.6.2005. Predecessor in interest of present respondents paid earnest money of Rs. 12,00,000/- out of sale consideration of Rs. 29,38,125/- to the appellants/defendants and possession of suit land was also delivered to predecessor in interest of present respondents. The predecessor in interest of present respondents requested the appellants/defendants to execute the registered sale deed but the request was not acceded to, thus Constraining him to file the suit on 14.01.2006. The appellants/defendants resisted the suit by filing the written statement and by raising factual as well as legal objections. Issues were framed by the learned trial Court and the parties produced their respective evidence. After recording the same, learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.12.2010 decreed the suit of the predecessor in interest of present respondents. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants/ defendants have filed the instant appeal and challenged the validity of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants contented, inter alia, that the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without determining the legal as well as factual points, decision thereon and assigning proper reasons thereof, without considering the evidence of the parties while the learned counsel for the respondents fully supported the impugned judgment and decree. We have heard the arguments-of the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely gone through the record as well as the impugned judgment and decree.
3. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that out of divergent pleadings of the parties, 08 issues were framed by the learned trial Court. The parties produced their respective evidence. Onus to prove Issues No. 1 & 2 about execution/enforcement of agreement to sell & payment of earnest money lies on the plaintiff/predecessor-in-interest of present respondents. In order to prove these issues, the plaintiff/ predecessor in interest of present respondents appeared/deposed as PW-3 and produced Zafar Hussain, Abdul Sattar as PW-2 &PW-3. The plaintiff/predecessor in interest.of present respondents exhibited documents from Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-13. On the other hand Mohammad Suhal appeared/deposed as DW-1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiff/predecessor in interest of present respondents. For the proper appreciation of the legal and technical objections raised, it is worthwhile to reproduce Hereunder findings about the Issues No. 1 & 2 of the impugned judgment & relief granted therein:
“Both these issues are inter connected with each other therefore these issues are being discussed jointly. Plaintiffs’ story in nutshell is that he entered into an agreement to sell with the defendants and Rs. 12,00,000/- were paid as earnest amount and agreement was executed. On the other hand defendants denied the execution of the agreement and alleged that the impugned agreement is the result of fraud and payment of
Rs. 12,00,000/- was also denied. It is noted that vide document Ex.P-3 the defendants filed application to the worthy Sessions Judge Layyah wherein they admitted the execution of the agreement and they have denied the payment ofRs. 12,00,000/-. It is further noted that in this very document defendants have admitted that they have received only Rs. 2,00,000/- as earnest amount. Meaning thereby the execution of impugned agreement is admitted when the execution of agreement is admitted, how the contents of agreement denied. Furthermore Zafar Yasmin who is also marginal witness, Abdul Sattar marginal witness and plaintiff appeared and they have proved the execution of agreement in their favour. Admitted facts are not need to prove, therefore, issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Relief
According to my findings on Issues No. 1 and 2 suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract is hereby decreed. Plaintiff is directed to deposit remaining amount within thirty days of the announcement of the judgment, failing which the suit will be treated as dismissed. With no order as to costs”.
4. The word “judgment” is defined in Section 2(9) as “the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of decree or order”. Under Order XX Rule 4(2) CPC, a Court is bound to record judgment containing concise statement of fact, point of determination, the decision thereon and reasons for such decision. The most important ingredient of a valid judgment is the reasons or grounds for decision because the validity of the judgment in higher forum is to be seen from the reasoning and the same is to be challenged by the aggrieved party again with reference to the reasons. In other words, the aggrieved party is to attack the reasoning of the judgment in appeal and not the narration of facts. The conclusion arrived at by the Court will not be binding without reasoning, therefore, the Courts insist that even in ex-parte judgments, reasons should be clearly given. The matter can be looked from another angle that it is cardinal principle of justice that justice should not only be done but it should seems to have been done. The reasoning is also necessary to satisfy this most important principle of dispensation of justice. The accumulative effect of Section 2(9) and Order XX Rule 4(2) CPC would be that decision by a Court to be termed as judgment must be based on reasons and failure to comply with this requirement would render the judgment nullity and unsustainable. Apart from the reasons noted (supra), there is no cavil to the proposition that it was/is the duty and obligation of the plaintiff beneficiary of a transaction or a document to affirmatively prove the same by adducing cogent, relevant, unimpeachable oral as well as documentary evidence and while deciding about a transaction or a document, the Court has to discuss in detail the oral & documentary evidence of the beneficiary of a transaction or a document. Considering the impugned judgment on the touchstone of abovementioned principles, we have no doubts in our mind that the learned trial Court has not only failed to give the legal as well as factual reasons or grounds but also failed to consider and discuss the evidence of both the parties satisfactorily to ensure that learned trial Court has applied its judicial mind and that the findings are based on proper appraisal of evidence on the record. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be reversed as the same is not in consonance with the requirements of Order XX Rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (Act V) of 1908.
5. In view of the foregoing comprehensive discussion, the appellants/defendants have successfully made out a case for interference. Accordingly, it is observed that the impugned judgment and decree of learned trial Court are not sustainable at law and the same is accordingly set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court for decision afresh on merits according to the law in the light of observations made above within 03 months. For this purpose, the parties shall appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge Karor Lal Eisan on 19.07.2016.
(Y.A.) Appeal allowed
0 Comments