 |
| Specific performance |
معاہدہ بیع کے مقدمے میں لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ۔
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ کسی معاہدہ بیع کو صرف اس وجہ سے مشکوک یا ناقابلِ قبول قرار نہیں دیا جا سکتا کہ معاہدہ لکھنے والے شخص یا اسٹامپ فروش کو عدالت میں پیش نہیں کیا گیا۔
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ اگر دیگر گواہوں کی شہادت سے معاہدے کی تصدیق ہوتی ہو تو صرف معاہدہ لکھنے والے شخص کی عدم پیشی مقدمے کے لیے فیصلہ کن نہیں ہوتی۔
عدالت نے مزید قرار دیا کہ دستخط اور انگوٹھے کے نشان کے موازنے کے لیے ماہر کی رائے حاصل کی جا سکتی ہے۔ اگر کسی فریق نے خود ایسے موازنے کی درخواست دی ہو تو بلاجواز اس شہادت کو نظرانداز نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
عدالت کے مطابق جب دونوں فریقین کی شہادت میں تضادات موجود ہوں تو عدالت کو تمام شہادت کا مجموعی جائزہ لے کر یہ دیکھنا چاہیے کہ شواہد کا وزن کس فریق کے حق میں زیادہ ہے۔
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے یہ بھی واضح کیا کہ اپیل سننے والی عدالت کی ذمہ داری ہے کہ وہ پورے مقدمے کی شہادت کا آزادانہ طور پر دوبارہ جائزہ لے۔ محض ایک شہادت یا ایک خامی کی بنیاد پر فیصلہ کرنا کافی نہیں۔
چنانچہ ہائی کورٹ نے مقدمہ دوبارہ اپیل سننے والی عدالت کو بھجوا دیا تاکہ ماہر کی شہادت حاصل کرنے کے بعد تمام شواہد کا مکمل جائزہ لے کر قانون کے مطابق نیا فیصلہ کیا جائے۔
حوالہ: 2026 سی ایل سی 1133
Must read judgment.
2026 CLC 1133
[Lahore]
Before Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, J
ALI AHMED -Petitioner
Versus
ZULFIQAR ALI ---Respondent
Civil Revision No. 714 of 2017, decided on 15th October, 2025.
(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-
-Art.79-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12-Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell-Failure to produce stamp vendor and scribe-Effect-Proof of document through attesting witnesses-Preponderance of evidence-Scope-Trial Court conditionally decreed the suit, however, the Appellate/District Court accepted the appeal against the petitioner/plaintiff-Whether failure to produce the stamp vendor and scribe was fatal to the case in the presence of other evidence?--Held: Examination of the judgment of the Appellate Court revealed that it rested only on the evidence led by the revision-petit y the revision-petitioner and contradictions contained therein---A specific defence of giving a part of the suit property on rent to the petitioner/plaintiff was set up by the respondent/defendant---When a contesting party takes a defence and both parties produce evidence, the Court is required to evaluate the evidence on the touchstone of preponderance of evidence--The Appellate Court treated failure to produce the stamp vendor and scribe as crucial, though such witnesses were available---A document is to be proved in accordance with Art. 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, however, omission to produce the scribe is not always fatal where the contents of the document are confirmed by attesting witnesses--The scribe of an agreement to sell is not a substitute for an attesting witness---There were contradictions is in in the the e evidence of both sides---It would be appropriate that the Appellate Court should first secure expert evidence and then evaluate the entire evidence on the touchstone of preponderance of evidence---High Court remanded the case to the Appellate Court for decision afresh-Revision filed by the plaintiff was allowed accordingly.
Khalid Hussain and others v. Nazir Ahmad and others 2021 SCMR 1986; Sheikh Muhammad Muneer v. Mst. Feezan PLD 2021 SC 538; Abdul Khaliq v. Muhammad Younas and others 2019 MILD 824; Muhammad Tufail v. Ghulam Hussain and others 2008 YI.R 921; Farid Bakhsh v. Jind Wadda and others 2015 SCMR 1044; Farzand Ali and another v. Khuda Bakhsh and others PLD 2015 SC 187 and Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and others PLD 2011 SC 241 ref.
(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
-Arts. 84(1) & 84(2)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XVI, R.12---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12--Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Comparison of signatures and thumb impressions---Use of expert evidence---Powers of Court---Scope-Trial Court conditionally decreed the suit, however, the Appellate/District Court accepted the appeal against the petitioner/plaintiff---Whether refusal to obtain expert evidence for comparison of signatures/thumb impressions was justified?---Held: Record revealed that the respondent/defendant himself moved an application for comparison of thumb impression, which was accepted but he failed to deposit the requisite fee-The Appellate Court Appellate Court concluded that no adverse inference was warranted, treating such evidence as merely supportive---Although such evidence is corroborative, refusal to obtain it without sufficient reason was not justified---Article 84(1) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 permits comparison of signatures, writing or seal to ascertain authorship---Article 84(2) empowers the Court to direct any person present to write for purposes of comparison-The Court is empowered to obtain expert opinion for such comparison---Under O.XVI, R.12, C.P.C., the Court may compel attendance and impose consequences for non-compliance---Scientific methods of comparison are rec recognised and cannot be ignored---Though expert opinion is not conclusive, it is a relevant corroborative piece of evidence-There were contradictions in the evidence of both sides... It would be appropriate that the Appellate Court should first secure expert evidence and then evaluate the entire evidence on the touchstone of preponderance of evidence---High Court remanded the case to the Appellate Court for decision afresh---Revision filed by the plaintiff was allowed accordingly.
Ikram Ullah v. Mst. Farkhanda Habib and 3 others 2012 CLC 569; Ali Ahmad v. The Government of West Pakistan PLD 1960 (W.P) Lah. 90; Mian Sohail Ahmed and others v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 956 and Muhammad Rafi v. Mst. Jamila Begum and 09 others 2022 YLR 1752 ref.
(c) Appeal-
duty Limon -First appeal--Powers Powers of Appellate Court---Duty to reappraise aise evidence-Scope-First evidence- appeal is continuation of the suit and it is the duty of the Appellate Court to evaluate the entire evidence and determine where the balance lies---Failure to independently assess evidence and frame points for determination amounts to failure in discharge of duty.
Gul Rehman v. Gul Nawaz Khan 2009 SCMR 589 ref.
Ch. Muhammad Ejaz Jamaal and Muhammad Afzal Aziz for Revision-Petitioner. Mian Javaid Iqbal Arain and Mehar Muhammad Jahangir for Respondent.