Agreement to sell the disputed property in a consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- in presence of witnesses, thereafter the agreement was reduced into writing on 02.09.2005 and possession was delivered to him, which is still with him, this shows that the requirement of Article 17 of the Order, 1984 was fulfilled in letter and spirit.

 Article 17(2)(a) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 provides that in matters pertaining to financial or future obligations, if reduced to writing, the instrument shall be attested by two men or one man and two women, so that one may remind the other, if necessary, and evidence shall be led accordingly;‟ meaning thereby when two persons enter into any agreement pertaining to financial or future obligations, the instrument should be attested by two men or one man and two women, so that one may remind the other. In the present case, it is case of the respondent that the petitioner entered into agreement to sell the disputed property in a consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- in presence of witnesses, thereafter the agreement was reduced into writing on 02.09.2005 and possession was delivered to him, which is still with him, this shows that the requirement of Article 17 of the Order, 1984 was fulfilled in letter and spirit.

Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 enumerates the procedure of proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.

It is a settled proposition of law that admitted facts need not to be proved; however, in the present case, the respondent produced one marginal witness and scribe of the agreement to sell (Ex.P1). Receiving of earnest money is not denied by the petitioner and she only stated that the respondent did not appear in the office of Sub-Registrar for registration of the sale deed and payment of remaining sale consideration, but as observed above, the petitioner did not provide copy of Fard Milkiyat to the respondent as per settled terms of the agreement to sell; thus, the learned Courts below after evaluating evidence on record in a minute manner have reached to a just conclusion that the respondent is entitled to the decree for specific performance of agreement to sell and discretionary relief has rightly been granted to him (respondent).

Civil Revision No.547 of 2012

Mst. Azizan Bibi Versus Nasir Mehmood