Oral Sale---Proof ---Best witnesses---Held---Vendors, who by transferring their shares had already stood with the plaintiffs could ............

 2023 MLD 654

Oral Sale---Proof ---Best witnesses---Held---Vendors, who by transferring their shares had already stood with the plaintiffs could be best persons to support their stance, but they were withheld, therefore under Art. 129, illustration (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, hostile inference was to be drawn that had they been examined, they might have negated stance of plaintiffs/ respondents

Suit for specific performance of oral contract----Failure to provide essential details with regards to oral sale---Creditability of witnesses---Suit instituted by respondents/plaintiffs/was unanimously decreed by courts below---Appellants asserted that neither any oral sale transaction was settled nor consideration was received, rather false fictitious and concocted story was planted to usurp the valuable land---Validity---Imperative for respondents to specifically provide essential details with regard to oral sale transaction---Time, date, venue and names of witnesses were to be specifically provided so as to prove when, where and before whom alleged oral transaction was effected---Object behind said principle was to subvert the gate of frivolous litigation besides to discourage the production of shocking as well as surprising evidence---Perusal of record affirmed that neither time, venue nor names of witnesses were provided in the plaint which alone was fatal to non-suit the respondents/ plaintiffs---Evidence on the part of plaintiffs was inconsistent, uncertain and variable, which was not enough to prove the alleged oral transaction-

All reactions: