 |
| Tameel e mukhtas ka dawa sabat karne ke liye hashia ke dono gwah pesh karne zaroori hain.. |
تعمیلِ مختص (Specific Performance)کے دعویٰ میں معاہدے کا ثابت ہونا بنیادی شرط ہے۔ اگر معاہدہ قانوناً قابلِ تصدیق نہ ہو تو محض دعویٰ یا یک طرفہ گواہی کی بنیاد پر مخصوص پرفارمنس کا حکم جاری نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
زیرِ نظر فیصلہ لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے اسی اصول کو واضح انداز میں بیان کیا ہے۔
معاہدہ اور دعویٰ تعمیلِ مختص
اس مقدمے میں دعویٰ کنندگان نے ایک معاہدہ مورخہ یکم ستمبر دو ہزار چار کی بنیاد پر تعمیلِ مختص کا دعویٰ دائر کیا۔ معاہدہ زرِ ثمن کی ادائیگی اور قبضہ دینے کے دعویٰ پر مشتمل تھا، مگر مدعا علیہ نے معاہدے کی صحت اور تکمیل کو چیلنج کیا۔
حاشیہ کے گواہوں کی قانونی حیثیت
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ قانوںِ شہادت آرڈیننس انیس سو چوراسی کے تحت ایسا معاہدہ جو قانوناً قابلِ تصدیق ہو، اس کے لیے کم از کم دو حاشیہ گواہوں کی گواہی ضروری ہے۔ اگر معاہدہ پر دو گواہ موجود ہوں تو ان دونوں کو عدالت میں پیش کرنا لازم ہے، بشرطیکہ وہ حیات ہوں اور شہادت دینے کے قابل ہوں۔
ایک گواہ کی پیشی ناکافی
اس مقدمے میں معاہدہ پر دو حاشیہ گواہ درج تھے، مگر مدعی صرف ایک گواہ کو پیش کر سکے۔ دوسرے گواہ کو نہ تو پیش کیا گیا اور نہ ہی اس کی عدم پیشی کی کوئی تسلی بخش وضاحت دی گئی۔ عدالت نے اس کمی کو معاہدہ ثابت نہ ہونے کے مترادف قرار دیا۔
کاتب یا سکرائب کی گواہی کا دائرہ
عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ معاہدہ لکھنے والا کاتب یا سکرائب اس وقت تک حاشیہ کا گواہ نہیں بن سکتا جب تک اس کا نام معاہدہ پر بطور گواہ درج نہ ہو۔ محض تحریر لکھ دینے سے وہ معاہدے کی تصدیق کے لیے لازمی گواہ کا درجہ حاصل نہیں کر لیتا۔
ادائیگی زرِ ثمن کا ثبوت
عدالت نے یہ بھی نوٹ کیا کہ زرِ ثمن کی ادائیگی کا کوئی قابلِ اعتماد ثبوت پیش نہیں کیا گیا۔ پیش کیے گئے گواہ بھی ادائیگی کی تصدیق نہ کر سکے، جس سے دعویٰ مزید کمزور ہو گیا۔
عدالتی نتیجہ
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ جب معاہدہ قانوںِ شہادت کے مطابق ثابت نہ ہو تو دعویٰ تعمیلِ مختص ناقابلِ قبول ہو جاتا ہے۔ اس بنیاد پر ٹرائل کورٹ اور اپیلیٹ کورٹ کے فیصلوں کو درست قرار دیتے ہوئے سول ریویژن خارج کر دی گئی۔
قانونی اصول کا خلاصہ
یہ فیصلہ اس اصول کو مضبوط کرتا ہے کہ تعمیلِ مختص کے دعویٰ میں معاہدے کی قانونی تصدیق ناگزیر ہے، اور حاشیہ کے دونوں گواہوں کی پیشی کے بغیر ایسا معاہدہ ثابت نہیں ہو سکتا، سوائے ان استثنائی صورتوں کے جو قانون میں صراحتاً بیان کی گئی ہوں۔
**Civil Revision No. 891 of 2011** کے کیس میں لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے ایک معاہدہ برائے خاص عملداری کے مقدمے کی دائرہ کار کا جائزہ لیا۔ معاہدہ، جو 01.09.2004 کو ہوا تھا، درخواست گزاروں اور مدعا علیہ کے پیشرو کے درمیان تھا۔ درخواست گزار اس معاہدے کو نافذ کرنے کے خواہاں تھے، لیکن دستاویز کو ثابت کرنے میں مشکلات کا سامنا کرنا پڑا۔
عدالتی فیصلے کے اہم نکات:
1. **دستاویز کا ثبوت*
*: معاہدہ کو دو گواہوں کی موجودگی میں ثابت کرنا ضروری تھا، جیسا کہ قانوں شہادت آرڈیننس 1984 کی دفعہ 79 کے تحت ہے۔ صرف ایک گواہ (زوار حسین) کو پیش کیا گیا، اور دوسرے (خالد جاوید) کو عدالت میں پیش نہیں کیا گیا، جس کی وجہ سے عدالت نے دستاویز کو ناکافی ثابت شدہ قرار دیا۔
2. **گواہوں کی اہلیت*
*: عدالت نے یہ فیصلہ دیا کہ ایک تحریری گواہ جیسے محمد منیر ارشد، جو دستاویز میں نامزد نہیں تھا، دوسرے گواہ کی جگہ نہیں لے سکتا۔ محمد منیر ارشد کی گواہی کو معاہدہ ثابت کرنے کے لئے ناکافی قرار دیا گیا۔
3. **عدالتی فیصلے**
: دونوں trial اور اپیلیٹ عدالتوں نے ان مسائل کی بنیاد پر مقدمے کو مسترد کر دیا۔ ہائی کورٹ نے ان فیصلوں میں کوئی قانونی غلطی یا واضح بے قاعدگی نہ پانے کی وجہ سے مقدمے کو مسترد کر دیا۔
عدالت نے اس فیصلے کے ذریعے واضح کیا کہ تمام ضروری گواہوں کو پیش کرنا دستاویزات کی تصدیق کے لئے لازمی ہے۔
Must read Judgement
Stereo. HCJDA-38
JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Civil Revision No.891 of 2011
Zaka Ullah etc.
Versus
Manzoor Hussain (deceased) etc.
JUDGMENT
DATE OF HEARING
08.12.2015
PETITIONERS BY
Mirza Hafeez ur Rehman, Advocate.
RESPONDENT No.1
Mian Subah Sadiq Klasson, Advocate.
(1-A to 1-G)
ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.- This civil revision is directed
against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts
below whereby the suit of the petitioners for specific performance
of the agreement dated 01.09.2004 in respect of 11 Kanals 8
Marlas for a consideration of Rs.3,42,000/- was dismissed on the
ground that the said document was not proved on the basis of the
two witnesses.
2.
Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this revision petition
are that on 01.09.2004 an agreement was executed between the
petitioners and Manzoor Hussain, the predecessor of respondents
No.1-A to 1-G, in respect of 11 Kanals 8 Marlas of agricultural
land situated in Chak No.286/G.B., Tehsil and District Toba Tek
Singh in the presence of Khalid Javaid son of Muhammad Sadiq
and Zawar Hussain son of Muhammad Bakhsh (PW4). An
amount of Rs.3,42,000/- was also paid and the possession of the
property was handed over to the petitioners. As the property was
C.R.No.891 of 2011
2
mortgaged with the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan,
therefore, it was also agreed that the same will be redeemed within
6 months and the registered sale deed will be executed in favour
of the petitioners. Upon his failure, a suit for specific performance
of the agreement was filed by the petitioners on 12.06.2006. The
suit was resisted by filing the written statement upon which the
followings issues were framed:-
ISSUES
1. Whether Manzoor Hussian deceased predecessor in
interest of defendant No.1-A to 1-G agreed to sell
property measuring 11 kanals 8 marlas out of
khewat No.283/279 khatooni No.681 rectangle
No.53 situated in the area of Chak No.286/GB, Toba
Tek Singh at the rate of Rs.2,40,000/- per acre vide
agreement dated 1.9.2004? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs paid Rs.3,42,000/- as
consideration to Manzoor Hussain and the
possession of killa No.14/2 measuring 4 kanals 9
marlas, 15/2 measuring 2 kanals , killa No.16/1
measuring 3 kanals 11 marlas killa No.16/2
measuring 5 kanals 7 marlas was delivered to the
plaintiffs by the predecessor in interest of the
defendant? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action and locus
standi to institute the suit? OPD
4. Whether suit is not maintainable in its present form?
OPD
5. Whether suit is bad due to misjoinder of parties?
OPD
6. Whether suit is false, frivolous, vexatious and the
same is liable to be dismissed with special costs?
OPD
7. Whether the impugned agreement is false, baseless
result of forgery, without consideration and the same
is liable to be cancelled? OPD
8. Relief.
The learned trial court while giving its finding on issue No.1
observed that the said agreement Exh.P1 was attested by Khalid
C.R.No.891 of 2011
3
Javaid and Zawar Hussain but only Zawar Hussain was produced
as PW4 and the second witness Khalid Javaid was not produced
without any explanation of either summoning him through the
process of the court, therefore, the said document is not proved
under Article 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. It
was also observed that PW2/Muhammad Munir Arshad was a
scribe who even admitted that the document did not contain either
his name or his signatures. It was also observed that the witness
did not prove the payment of consideration for the said transaction
and issue No.2 was also decided against the petitioners. The
learned appellate court concurred with the findings of the learned
trial court and upheld the reasons given by it. Hence this civil
revision.
3.
Mirza Hafeez-ur-Rehman, Advocate, learned counsel for
the petitioners contends that a document can be proved by two
witnesses who attested the document and not by the two marginal
witnesses. Adds that PW4/Zawar Hussain is as good as any other
witness of the document despite being a vendor. He places
reliance upon Mst. SAKINA BIBI and another versus
MUHAMMAD ANWAR alias MUJAHID and others (PLD 2007
Lahore 254) and SANA ULLAH and another versus
MUHAMMAD MANZOOR and another (PLJ 1996 SC 526) and
prays for setting aside of the two judgments passed by the two
courts below.
C.R.No.891 of 2011
4
4.
Conversely, Mian Subah Sadiq Klasson, Advocate, learned
counsel for the legal heirs of Manzoor Hussain/respondent No.1
(1-A to 1-G), however, contends that the agreement to sell Exh.P1
was required to be proved by Khalid Javaid, the other marginal
witness and that stamp vendor/scribe cannot be substituted for
other marginal witness. Further contends that even the name of
Muhammad Munir Arshad/PW2, the alleged vendor, is not
mentioned anywhere in the plaint or in the alleged agreement to
sell, Exh.P1, therefore, he cannot be considered as a witness of the
document. The date of the execution was not mentioned on the
document Exh.P1 and Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order,
1984 duly applies requiring the proof of a document by two
witnesses. Places reliance upon Hafiz TASSADUQ HUSSAIN
versus MUHAMMAD DIN through Legal Heirs and others (PLD
2011 SC 241) and also submits that the judgment cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Mst. SAKINA
BIBI and another versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR alias
MUJAHID and others (PLD 2007 Lahore 254) does not relate to
an agreement to sell as it deals with the case of a will.
5.
Arguments heard. File perused.
6.
The petitioners’ case as put forthwith by Mirza Hafeez-urRehman, Advocate is that the agreement to sell dated 01.09.2004,
Exh.P1 was duly executed between the petitioners and the
predecessor of the respondents (1-A to 1-G), namely, Manzoor
Hussain which was proved on the basis of the statement of
C.R.No.891 of 2011
5
PW4/Zawar Hussain and Muhammad Munir Arshad/PW2 as both
witnessed the execution of the document and that the latter despite
being a scribe, was a marginal witness. However, the introduction
of PW2 as a witness was seriously objected by Mian Subah Sadiq
Klasson, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No.1 (1-A to
1-G) on the ground; firstly, that his name was not mentioned on
the document; secondly, he was not a stamp vendor since he did
not produce any valid license or any register showing entry of the
said stamp paper and thirdly, he has not witnessed the transaction
having been completed in his presence.
7.
Admittedly, Exh.P1, the alleged sale deed was executed in
the presence of Khalid Javaid and Zawar Hussain as two
witnesses. Non-production of Khalid Javaid was neither explained
by the petitioners nor any serious effort was made to produce him
before the court through the process of law. Legally speaking, a
document is required to be proved under Article 79 of the Qanune-Shahadat Order, 1984, which is reproduced as under:-
“79. Proof of execution of document required by
law to be attested. If a document is required by law to
be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until two
attesting witnesses [at] least have been called for the
purpose of proving its execution, if there be two
attesting witnesses alive, and subject to the process of
the Court and capable of giving evidence:
Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an
attesting witness in proof of the execution of any
document, not being a will, which has been registered
in accordance with the provision of the Registration
Act, 1908, (XVI of 1908) unless its execution by the
person by whom it purports to have been executed is
specifically denied.
C.R.No.891 of 2011
6
The competency of a witness has been laid down in Article 17 of
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 which is also reproduced as
under:-
“17. Competence and number of witness.-(1)
The competence of a person to testify, and the number
of witnesses required in any case shall be determined in
accordance with the injunctions of Islam as laid down
in the Holy Quran and Sunnah.
(2) Unless otherwise provided in any law
relating to the enforcement of Hudood or any other
special law,
(a) 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; and
(b)
in all other matters, the Court may accept,
or act on, the testimony of one man or one woman or
such other evidence as the circumstances of the case
may warrant.”
A perusal of the above said two provisions of the Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984, clearly demonstrates that except for a will,
no document can be used in evidence until it is proved by two
attesting witnesses.
8.
In the instant case, Zawar Hussain and Khalid Javaid were
the two attesting witnesses and mere production of one i.e. Zawar
Hussain in evidence as PW4 will not discharge the burden upon
the petitioners to prove the said document when its execution was
specifically denied by the respondent. Interestingly, neither in the
agreement to sell (Exh.P1) nor in the plaint name of Muhammad
Munir Arshad was mentioned in any capacity. He himself
admitted that though he witnessed the signing of the document but
remained ignorant about the payment having been made in his
C.R.No.891 of 2011
7
presence. He claims to be a witness of the signing of the said
document by two witnesses, therefore, he cannot be considered as
a witness of the transaction mentioned in the document. PW4
though admitted that the payment was made in his presence to
Manzoor Hussain yet he does not mention anywhere that
Muhammad Munir Arshad was a witness of the document. He
just said that some scribe signed the document.
9.
A witness cannot be introduced to prove a document unless
his name exists on the document, or was referred by any of the
witnesses in their statements or was named as such in the plaint,
therefore, at least his name was required to be mentioned in the
list of witnesses under Order XVI C.P.C. I am afraid, even the
statement of Muhammad Munir Arshad cannot support the
petitioners as he does not qualify to be a witness on the basis of
the above said criteria. If this tendency is allowed to prevail, any
person at any time will come forward to be considered as witness
to prove any document which will be against the spirit of law
relating to the proof of a document. The judgment relied upon by
the learned counsel for the petitioners in case of Mst. SAKINA
BIBI and another versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR alias
MUJAHID and others (PLD 2007 Lahore 254) also supports this
point of view. However, I am fortified by the recent judgment of
apex Court in case of Hafiz TASSADUQ HUSSAIN versus
MUHAMMAD DIN through Legal Heirs and others (PLD 2011
SC 241), where it was held as follows:-
C.R.No.891 of 2011
8
“…..Therefore, in my considered view a scribe of a
document can only be a competent witness in terms of
Articles 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order,
1984 if he has fixed his signature as an attesting witness
of the document and not otherwise; his signing the
document in the capacity of a writer does not fulfil and
meet the mandatory requirement of attestation by him
separately, however, he may be examined by the
concerned party for the corroboration of the evidence of
the marginal witnesses, or in the eventuality those are
conceived by Article 79 itself not as a substitute.”
10. Even otherwise, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by
the learned courts below cannot be interfered with in the exercise
of revisional jurisdiction in the absence of any illegality or glaring
irregularity, as a result of which this revision petition has been
found meritless and is, therefore, dismissed.
(ALI BAQAR NAJAFI)
JUDGE
Approved for reporting
JUDGE