Agreement to Sell Not Treated as Admitted Document Due to Alleged Interpolation – 2025 MLD 158 (Lahore High Court.
عنوان: اگر معاہدہ فروخت میں تاریخ بدل دی جائے تو؟ 2025 MLD 158 کا اہم قانونی اصول
تعارف:
کیس کا پس منظر:
عدالت کی مشاہدات:
فیصلہ:
منفرد قانونی نکتہ:
نتیجہ:
آپ کی رائے؟
Must read judgement
Citation Name : 2025 MLD 158 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Amir Sajjad
Side Opponent : Ghulam Murtaza Ch.
O. XII ---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 17, 76 & 79---Document alleged to be admitted by opposing party---Scope---Contention of the petitioner /plaintiff was that subject matter agreement-to-sell was an admitted document --- Validity --- Record revealed that said contention was inherently flawed and factually incorrect as the contents of written-statement filed by the respondent /defendant clearly reflected that though he conceded the existence of the subject matter agreement to sell, but alleged an interpolation with respect to date contained therein and categorically pleaded that the subject matter agreement to sell was forged one and date mentioned therein as 10.12.2012 was interposed by writing as 10.12.2014, therefore, in such scenario, it could not be accepted that the subject matter agreement to sell was an admitted document--- It was obligatory for the petitioner to produce the original document and in case he contended that original agreement to sell was with the respondent, it was his responsibility to follow the mandate contained in provisions of Art.76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, with respect to production of secondary evidence--- Failure of the petitioner to serve notice to produce or admit and deny the subject matter agreement to sell under O.XII of the C.P.C. had serious consequence under the law and one of the fundamental consequences thereof was that without following the mandate of law he was debarred to produce secondary evidence---This was the primary justification and rightly so prevailed with the Trial Court while dismissing the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell----Petitioner did not make any effort to prove the alleged agreement-to-sell through the mode prescribed under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---High Court concured with the findings contained in the impugned judgments and decree s, as to the proof of the subject matter agreement to sell which was mandatory, especially, when there was an allegation of interpolation in the contents of said agreement to sell and the petitioner in the course of evidence failed to prove transaction satisfying the tests laid down by the provisions of Arts.17 & 79 of the Order, 1984---No material illegality or irregularity having been notices in the findings contained in the impugned judgments and decree s passed by the Courts below, the same were maintained---Civil revisions were dismissed, in circumstances.