( 2017 CLC 996 Lahore)
S. 12---Suit for specific performance---Oral agreement---Plaintiff alleged that defendant had agreed to sell suit property in his favour on the basis of oral transaction--- Validity--- Neither any date, month or year of the bargain were feel mentioned in the plaint nor names of witnesses were provided therein to prove that as to when and where and before whom the said transaction was settled---Evidence if any led to prove the said fact was to be simply ignored---Suit was dismissed accordingly.
Arts. 17(2)(a) & 79, ---Execution of document---Proof---Attesting witnesses ---Non-placing on record---Plaintiff alleged that receipt in respect of bargain was executed by the defendant but defendant denied the execution of said receipt while pleading it to be forged, fictitious and result of collusion--- Validity--- Admittedly, the receipt was not attested by any of the witness, whereas law provides that in the matter pertaining to financial or future obligation, if reduced into writing, the document should be attested by two men or one man and two women and such document could not be used as document until two attested witnesses were not examined---Revision petition was allowed accordingly.
Art. 61, Qanun-e-Shahadat Signature, authenticity of---Comparison by expert---Scope---Where alleged executant/defendant denied his signature on the alleged receipt, plaintiff should apply to the court for getting the signature of defendant executant compared from the expert---Plaintiff having not done the same, incurred presumption against him---Revision petition was allowed accordingly.
Art. 118, Qanun-e-Shahad,
Version alleged---Proof--- Whoever invoked the aid of law should be the first to prove his case--- Anyone who alleged any fact in affirmative had to prove the same.
Art. 79, Qanun-e-Shahadat.
Beneficiary of document--- Proof and rebuttal---Scope --- Beneficiary of the document was bound to produce positive evidence to prove the execution of the same---Stage of disproof or rebuttal would only come into play when the beneficiary of the transaction succeeded to produce positive evidence to prove his case.
S. 12---Suit for specific performance---Oral agreement---Proof---Cogent and convincing evidence not produced--- Effect ---Plaintiff was duty bound to produce cogent, convincing and reliable evidence to prove oral agreement which was conspicuously missing. Relief could not be given to plaintiff in circumstances.
Revision petition was allowed accordingly.
suit was dismissed.
( 2017 CLC 996 Lahore)
0 Comments