Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition No. 470 of 1980, heard on 4th March, 1985.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10‑2‑1980 in R.S.A. No. 952 of 1979).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9‑‑Suit. for specific performance‑‑Agreement to sell allegedly got executed by fraud‑ Dismissal of suit upheld in second appeal‑‑Judgment assailed on ground that evidence produced by respondent was not worthy of credit‑‑Material facts not being disputed Courts below, held, justified in holding that agreement was a tainted document and relief could be refused on its weakness‑‑There being no question of law to be examined further, leave to appeal refused.
Muhammad Abdullah Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 4th March, 1985.
.‑‑The petitioner sought specific performance of a contract to sell land. The respondent resisted on the ground that in the garb of getting a lease deed executed the petitioner had subjected him to fraud and got an agreement to sell executed. The trial Court upheld the plea of the respondent so did the first appellate Court and the High Court in second appeal. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 10th of February, 1980.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the evidence produced by the plaintiff‑respondent was all hearsay and not worthy of credit. On such an evidence his defence could not succeed. According to the learned counsel it is a case of no evidence.
The fact that the respondent has been adjudged by the Courts) to be an illiterate and simpleton is not disputed. It is also not disputed before us that the entries in the Khasra Girdawari show the petitioner not as a prospective vendee but as a lessee. None of the witness whose statement the learned counsel has been able to read out to us stated in specific terms that the agreement to sell the land was read out, explained and was understood by the respondent. In such a situation, the Court could justifiably hold that the agreement to sell, which the petitioner wanted to utilise was a tainted document and relief could be refused to him on its weakness. There is no question of law to be examined further. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
M. I. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer