Qanuni Amdad urdu: Failure of Specific Performance Claim Due to Delay and Unreliable Evidence

9/10/2025

Failure of Specific Performance Claim Due to Delay and Unreliable Evidence

آرٹیکل برائے 2025 CLC 1497

عنوان: Specific Performance

تعمیل مختص کے دعویٰ میں ثبوت کی اہمیت اور طویل تاخیر کے اثرات

متن:

محمد رمضان کے جانشینان نے دعویٰ کیا کہ محمد شریف کے جانشینان نے جائیداد فروخت کی تھی اور وعدہ کیا کہ بینک کے قرض کی واپسی کے بعد جائیداد منتقل کی جائے گی۔ دعویٰ تقریباً 30 سال بعد دائر ہوا، جبکہ فروشندہ اور معاہدے کے حاشیے کے گواہان سب فوت ہو چکے تھے۔ عدالت نے مدعی کے ثبوت ناقابلِ اعتماد پائے اور طویل تاخیر، گواہان کی وفات، اور دستاویز کی غیر موجودگی کی بنیاد پر دعویٰ مسترد کر دیا۔

یہ کیس واضح کرتا ہے کہ Specific Performance کے دعویٰ میں درست اور قابلِ اعتماد ثبوت کا ہونا لازمی ہے، اور طویل تاخیر یا فوت ہونے والے فروشندہ و گواہان کے بغیر دعویٰ کامیاب نہیں ہو سکتا۔

اہم سبق:

ثبوت کی کمی یا ناقابلِ اعتماد گواہی دعویٰ کو ناکام بنا سکتی ہے۔

طویل تاخیر دعویٰ کی قانونی حیثیت پر منفی اثر ڈالتی ہے۔

Qanun-e-Shahadat، Art.100 کے تحت presumptions عدالت کی صوابدید پر منحصر ہیں، خودکار نہیں ہوتے۔

حوالہ جات:

Bahadar v. Sohna PLD 1961 (W.P.) Lahore 387

Ch. Muhammad Shafi v. Shamim Khanum 2007 SCMR 838

PLD 2014 SC 794

یہ آرٹیکل وکلاء، طلبہ اور قانونی بلاگرز کے لیے Specific Performance کے مقدمات کی سمجھ کے لیے مفید ہے۔

Must read Judgement

2025 CLC 1497

[Lahore]

Before Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, J

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN (deceased) through L.Rs and others ---Petitioners

versus

MUHAMMAD SHARIF (deceased) through L.Rs and others ---Respondents

Civil Revision No. 65806 of 2024, decided on 29th October, 2024.

CLC

1498

CIVIL LAW CASES

[Vol. XLV

(a) Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877)---

-S. 12-Suit for specific performance of agreement-Limitation Claim of the plaintiff, that the sellers / vendors (two in number) sold the suit property to him vide the agreement and promised to transfer the suit-property after redemption of mortgage charge from the Bank, wat concurrently rejected-Validity-Suit for specific performance wa alleged seller (two in number) have passed away but somehow in the suit or examination-in-chief of petitioner's witnesses even the date of instituted after twenty-five (25) years of the agreement---Admittedly, death of alleged sellers is not specified-It came to the surface during cross-examination of one of the plaintiff witnesses that alleged seller died about thirts (30) years prior to recording of the evidence---There hardly any justification available for instituting the suit after such a long delay from the agreement and decades after the death of the alleged seller---The names of the marginal witnesses are given in the agreement but even those alleged witnesses have passed away---The two Courts below have disbelieved the evidence of the petitioner and the High Court also found that the evidence of the petitioner was not credible---Revision, filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. [pp. 1501, 1502] A, B&G

(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

S. 12-Suit for specific performance of agreement---Evidence, deficiency of-Effect-Claim of the plaintiff, that the sellers / vendors (two in number) sold the suit property to him vide the agreement and promised to transfer the suit-property after redemption of mortgage charge from the Bank, was concurrently rejected-Validity-The names of the marginal witnesses are given in the agreement but even those alleged witnesses have passed away--Though one of the witnesses of petitioner / plaintiff claimed that he is son of one of the marginal witnesses and he was with his father at the time of execution of the agreement, however, in cross-examination he could not even depose as to the date of the agreement and then he stated that he cannot remember the names of the persons who have given their thumb impressions on the agreement---The evidence led by the petitioner is not coherent or confidence inspiring so that it can be said that they have discharged the onus to prove any fact that they asserted---Two Courts below have disbelieved the evidence of the petitioner and the High Court also found that the evidence of the petitioner was not credible-Revision, filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. [pp. 1501, 1502] B, C & G

2025.

Art. 100-performance period, reckon vendors (two agreement ana of mortgage Arguments of years for pres be calculated but the Trial Validity-Ar (30) years a from any c not from the date on wh otherwise b though the filing of the the case, k the parties gives discr particular petitioner petitioner dismissed E Lahore Syed Ali Lahore and 1980

(d) Qa

-Art. perform period-vendor agreen of me Valid docu that

CEC

XLVII

Muhammad Ramzan v. Muhammad Sharif (Sultan Tanvir Ahmad. J)

1499

2/ Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---

ation

r) sold fer the was tedly, in the Cate of uring seller ere is ach a the in the the in

nce,

dors and age The ven nal not

the

Art. 100-Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), S. 12-Suit for specifie preformance of agreement-Production of document Thirty years period, reckoning of Scope-Claim of the plaintiff, that the sellers /understwo in number) sold the suit property to him vide the greement and promised to transfer the suit-proparty after redemption mortgage charge from the Bank, was concurrently rejected-Arguments of the petitioner / plaintiff that the period of thirty (30) years for prexamption under Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, is to be calculated till the date when the agreement was brought on record, but the Trial Court reckoned this period up-till p-till institution of the suit Validity-Article 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, stipulates that thirty (30) years are to be taken on the date when a document is produced from any custody-The period of thirty (30) years is to be reckoned, not from the date upon which deed is filed in the Court, but from the date on which it has been tendered in evidence, its genuineness or present case, otherwise becomes the subject of proof-Thus, in the pre though the Trial Court fell into error while reckoning the period up-till filing of the suit, however, this error has no bearing on the result of the case, keeping in view the facts of the case and the evidence led by the parties-Furthermore, Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, clearly gives discretion to the Court to apply presumption keeping in view the particular case-Two Courts below have disbelieved the evidence of the petitioner and the High Court also found that the evidence of the petitioner was not credible---Revision, filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. [pp. 1501, 1502] D, E & G

Bahadar and others v. Sohna and another PLD 1961 (W.P.) Lahore 387, Surendra Krishna Roy and another v. Mirza Mahammad Syed Ali Mutawali and others AIR 1936 Privy Council 15; AIR 1924 Lahore 145; 1925 Madras 184, AIR 1972 Allahabad 406 (V 59 C 108) and 1980 CLC 216 SC (AJ&K) ref.

(d) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--

-Art. 100-Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), S. 12-Suit for specific performance of agreement-Production of document-Thirty years period-Presumption Scope-Claim of the plaintiff, that the sellers /vendors (two in number) sold the suit property to him vide the agreement and promised to transfer the suit-property after redemption of mortgage charge from the Bank, was concurrently rejected-Validity-To presume the signatures and every other part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any person and that it is executed by the person by whom it purports to be executed,

CLC

1500

CIVIL LAW CASES

[Vol. XLV

Court should be very careful about applying any presumption under Art. 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, in favour of old document when the same are produced during the trial of a suit, in which the proprietary rights are set up and the Court in its discretion can refuss to apply presumption where evidence in proof of the document is produced and then it is disbelieved---The word 'may' used in Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, signifies that presumption envisaged therein does not follow as a matter of course---Two Courts below have disbelieved the evidence of the petitioner and the High Court aise found that the evidence of the petitioner was not credible---Revision, filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. [p. 1502) F & G

Ch. Muhammad Shafi v. Shamim Khanum 2007 SCMR 838: Yousuf v. Muhammad Akbar and others 2024 CLC 1085 and Mst Hajyani Bar Bibi through L.R. v. Mrs. Rehana Afzal Ali Khan and others PLD 2014 SC 794 ref.

Rashid Imran Chohan for the Petitioners.

ORDER

petition, filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure-1908 SULTAN TANVIR AHMAD, J. Through the present revision-(the 'Code'), the revision-petitioners have challenged judgment and decree dated 06.09.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kasur as well

2025.

presun

instea

the le

suit tran Zas afte Ba SUB de A is

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.