Inconsistencies in the statements of the plaintiff's witnesses, non-appearance of the original contract, and delay in the claim, the High Court dismissed the case.
 |
| Due to inconsistencies in the statements of the plaintiff's witnesses, non-appearance of the original contract, PLJ 2022 Lahore (Note) 49 |
زمین کے فروخت کے معاہدے کی تعمیل مسترد
:LJ 2022 Lahore (Note) 49
🔴 تعارف
زمین کے فروخت کے معاہدے اور تعمیل مختص کے دعوے اکثر عدالتوں میں زیر بحث آتے ہیں۔ PLJ 2022 Lahore (Note) 49 میں ہائی کورٹ نے ایک مقدمے کا فیصلہ دیا، جس میں درخواست گزار کی جانب سے زمین کی فروخت کے معاہدے کی تعمیل کے لیے دائر کردہ دعوے کو خارج کر دیا گیا۔ اس کیس کا خلاصہ اور اہم قانونی نکات درج ذیل ہیں:
🔴 مقدمے کی تفصیلات
📍 درخواست گزار (منظور حسین) نے مدعا علیہ (محمد خورشید) کے خلاف زمین کے فروخت کے معاہدے کی تعمیل کے لیے مقدمہ دائر کیا۔
📍 دعویٰ تھا کہ مدعا علیہ نے زمین فروخت کرنے کا معاہدہ کیا اور ابتدائی رقم وصول کی، لیکن بعد میں معاہدے پر عمل کرنے سے انکار کر دیا۔
📍 درخواست گزار نے معاہدے کی اصل کاپی یا رقم کی رسید پیش نہیں کی۔
📍 گواہوں کے بیانات میں تضاد تھا، اور ایک اہم گواہ نے کہا کہ وہ معاہدے کے وقت موجود نہیں تھا۔
📍 مقدمہ سات سال کی تاخیر سے دائر کیا گیا، جو قانونِ حدود کے تحت ناقابل قبول ہے۔
🔴 اہم قانونی مسائل اور عدالت کا تجزیہ
💠 ثبوتوں کی کمی: درخواست گزار نے معاہدے کی اصل کاپی اور رقم کی رسید پیش نہیں کی، جو فروخت کے بنیادی اجزاء میں شامل ہیں۔
💠 گواہوں میں تضاد: گواہوں کے بیانات مختلف تھے، خاص طور پر ایک حاشیائی گواہ (marginal witness) موجود نہیں تھا جب معاہدہ تحریر ہوا۔
💠 قبضہ کی عدم موجودگی: درخواست گزار یہ ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہا کہ زمین اس کے قبضے میں دی گئی تھی۔
💠 تأخیر کے مسائل: معاہدہ 10 جولائی 2002 کو ہوا، لیکن مقدمہ 8 فروری 2010 کو دائر کیا گیا، سات سال سات ماہ کی تاخیر کے ساتھ۔
💠 عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ دعویٰ بروقت اور مستعدی کے ساتھ دائر ہونا چاہیے۔
🔴 عدالتی فیصلہ
✅ ہائی کورٹ نے نیچے کی عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کی تصدیق کی۔
✅ عدالت نے کہا کہ نہ کوئی قانونی یا حقیقی نقص ہے اور نہ کوئی غلط فہمی۔
✅ اس لیے درخواست خارج کر دی گئی۔
🔴 اہم قانونی حوالہ جات
📎 Specific Relief Act, 1877 – Section 12: معاہدے کی تعمیل کے لیے مقدمہ دائر کرنے کی شق۔
📎 Law of Limitation: قانونی کارروائی بروقت کرنے کی ضرورت۔
📎 حوالہ جات: 2014 SCMR 513، 2012 SCMR 730۔
🔴 نتیجہ اور سبق
🌟 معاہدے کی اصل کاپی اور رقم کی رسید پیش کرنا لازمی ہے۔
🌟 گواہوں کے تضاد مقدمے کو کمزور کر دیتا ہے۔
🌟 قانونی کارروائی میں تاخیر مقدمے کو ناقابل قبول بنا دیتی ہے۔
🌟 عدالتیں تمام ثبوتوں کا محتاط جائزہ لیتی ہیں اور فرضی یا غیر یقینی دعوے قبول نہیں کرتی۔
اس مقدمے کا تعلق تعمیل مختص کے دعوے اور زمین کی فروخت کے معاہدے سے ہے۔ درخواست گزار نے دعویٰ کیا کہ مدعا علیہ نے زمین فروخت کرنے کا معاہدہ کیا، جس میں ابتدائی رقم وصول کی گئی تھی، لیکن بعد میں مدعا علیہ نے معاہدے پر عمل کرنے سے انکار کر دیا۔ تاہم، درخواست گزار نے فروخت کے معاہدے کی اصل کاپی یا رقم کی رسید پیش نہیں کی۔ گواہوں کے بیانات میں تضاد تھا، اور ایک اہم گواہ نے کہا کہ وہ معاہدے کے وقت موجود نہیں تھا۔ اس کے علاوہ، درخواست گزار یہ ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہا کہ زمین اس کے قبضے میں دی گئی تھی۔
مقدمہ بھی سات سال کی تاخیر سے دائر کیا گیا تھا، جس کی وجہ سے یہ دعویٰ وقت کی پابندی کے قانون (قانونِ حدود) کے تحت ناقابل قبول ہو گیا۔ عدالت نے کہا کہ قانون کے تحت دعویٰ بروقت اور مستعدی سے دائر کرنا ضروری ہے۔
عدالت نے نیچے کی عدالتوں کے فیصلوں میں کسی قانونی یا حقائق کی غلطی کی نشاندہی نہ پاتے ہوئے درخواست خارج کر دی۔
Must read judgement
PLJ 2022 Lahore (Note) 49
Present: Ma s u d Ab i d Na q v i , J.
MANZOOR HUSSAIN--Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD KHURSHEED--Respondent
C.R. No. 597 of 2017, decided on 5.4.2018.
Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)--
----S. 12--Suit for specific performance--Sale agreement--Deniel of sale
agreement--Concurrent findings--Non-presentation of marginal witness--
Contradiction amongst witnesses of plaintiff--Non-delivering of
possession of land--Petitioner was failed to proved basic ingredients of
sale--Challenge to--PW-2/Marginal witness was not present at time of
execution of alleged agreement/Exh.P. 1-- Petitioner failed to place on
record original agreement to sell and receipt of payment of sale
consideration without any plausible justification--There are clear
contradictions amongst witnesses regarding payment of sale consideration
and execution of receipt-- Petitioner has failed to establish that possession
of disputed land was delivered to him after execution of agreement--
Petitioner failed to prove basic ingredient of sale--Courts below have
thoroughly examined entire evidence of parties and reached at conclusion
regarding controversy--Neither any misreading or non-reading of
evidence on record nor any infirmity, legal or factual, has been pointed
out in impugned judgments and decrees passed by Courts below--
Revision petition dismissed.
[Para 4 & 6] A, B, C, D & F
Law of Limitation--
----Requirement of--Law of limitation requires that a person ‘ must approach
a Court of law and adopt legal remedies with due care, diligence, without
dilatoriness, without negligence and within time provided by law rather
than choosing his own time for purpose of bringing forth a legal action at
his own whim and desire.
[Para 4] E
2014 SCMR 513 and 2012 SCMR 730 ref.
Mr. Khurshid Naheed, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Zahid Imran, Advocate for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 5.4.2018.
Or d e r
Concise facts of this civil revision are that the petitioner/plaintiff
filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10.07.2002
against the defendant. The petitioner/plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that
defendant/respondent agreed to sell disputed land to the plaintiff in
consideration of Rs.2,70,000/- by receiving
Rs. 1,70,000/- as earnest money against receipt/Ex.P.2 whereas remaining
amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was to paid after three months and the defendant
would get the disputed land registered in the name of plaintiff but later on the
defendant refused to act upon the agreement. Hence, the suit. The defendant
filed the written statement and raised factual as well as legal objections and
specifically denied the execution of agreement to sell/Exh.P.1 and
receipt/Exh.P.2. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed
by the learned trial Court. The parties produced their respective evidence and
after recording the same, learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated
28.04.2014 dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner/plaintiff filed
appeal and learned Additional District Judge vide judgment & decree dated
31.01.2017 dismissed the appeal. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner/plaintiff
has filed the instant civil revision and challenged the validity of judgments
and decrees passed by the learned Courts below.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff vehemently argued
that the petitioner/plaintiff proved the execution of the agreement to sell and
payment of consideration by adducing cogent, relevant evidence, oral as well
as documentary but the same is not properly appreciated by the Courts below.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent supported the impugned
judgments and decrees.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and
minutely gone through the record as well as the impugned judgments and
decrees.
4. After the denial of agreement to sell/Ex.P.1 and receipt/Exh.P.2 by
the defendant, the petitioner/plaintiff had/has to prove execution of agreement
to sell, payment of sale consideration to the seller and delivery of possession
by adducing cogent, relevant, unimpeachable evidence, oral as well as
documentary. The petitioner/plaintiff himself appeared and deposed as PW-1
while marginal witnesses namely Rusmat Ali and Rulya were produced as
PW.2 and PW.3 and Sarfraz Hussain scriber appeared as PW.6. On the other
hand, defendant himself appeared as DW. 1.
The plaintiff/PW. 1 deposed that he had entered into an agreement to
sell with the defendant for the purchase of the suit property against
consideration of Rs.2,70,000/-, he paid Rs. 1,70,000/- as earnest money. The
agreement and the receipt of payment were executed in presence of witnesses
namely Rusmat Ali and Rulya. While during cross-examination, one of the
marginal witnesses of the agreement to sell namely Rusmat Ali/PW.2
conceded as under:
میں بوقت سودا موجود نہ تھا بلکہ میں شہر میں تحریر
Ex.P.1 کے وقت موجود تھا۔ میں نہ بتا سکتا ہوں دیہہ میں
کس مقام پر سودا ہوا۔ میں سودے کا وقت بھی نہ بتا سکتا
ہوں۔ یہ درست ہے کہ سودا کی رقم میرے سامنے طے نہیں
ہوئی ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
Hence, the PW.2/marginal witness was not present at the time of execution of
alleged agreement/Exh.P. 1. It is also important to mention here that the
plaintiff/petitioner failed-place on record original agreement to sell and
receipt of payment of sale consideration without any plausible justification.
Insofar as payment of sale consideration is concerned, there are clear
contradictions amongst the witnesses regarding the payment of sale
consideration and execution of receipt. Similarly, the plaintiff/petitioner has
failed to establish that possession of the disputed land was delivered to him
after the execution of agreement as he conceded in cross-examination that his
name is entered in revenue record without change till today as “فرارعہ”.
Hence, by bare reading of the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff, it becomes
crystal clear that the petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove the basic ingredient of
sale.
Even otherwise, agreement to sell was reduced into writing on
10.07.2002 but the plaintiff/petitioner filed the suit on 08.02.2010 after lapse
of 07 years and 07 months from the due date, hence, the suit is badly barred
by limitation. Law of limitation is considered as preventive in nature and
serves as a major deterrent against the factors and element which can affect
peace, tranquility and due order of state and society. The law of limitation
requires that a person must approach a Court of law and adopt legal remedies
with due care, diligence, without dilatoriness, without negligence and within
the time provided by the law rather than choosing his own time for the
purpose of bringing forth a legal action at his own whim and desire. Reliance
is placed on “Noor Din and others vs. Additional District Judge, Lahore and
f others (2014 SCMR 513).
5. With respect to interference in concurrent findings of the Courts
below, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as
Administrator, Thal Development through EACO Bhakkar and others vs Ali
Muhammad (2012 SCMR 730) held that:
“Concurrent findings of the trial Court and appellate Court in favour
of appellants were based on proper appreciation of evidence
therefore, the same were not open to interference by the revisional
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. which
is primarily meant for correction of jurisdictional defect/error and
material illegalities/ irregularities, resulting in miscarriage of justice
to a party.”
6. In the present case, no such defects have been pointed out by the
learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff in order to seek interference by this
Court. Learned Courts below have thoroughly examined the entire evidence
of the parties and thereafter reached at the conclusion regarding the
controversy. Neither any misreading or non-reading of evidence on record
nor any infirmity, legal or factual, has been pointed out in the impugned
judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, therefore, this
revision petition is dismissed.
(Y.A.) Petition dismissed