Naeem Ahmed khan vs Darya Khan art — 2024 MLD 689 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Naeem Ahmed khan VS Darya Khan art.84---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss. 12 & 54---Suit for specific performance of contract and injunction---Execution of the contract denied---Power of Trial Court to compare signatures on documents available on record---Scope---Respondent being buyer of land through contract filed a suit for specific performance against the seller, which was dismissed by the trial Court---appeal was preferred, which was allowed---Validity---Record showed that during the proceedings of the case, the defendant had moved an application under S. 151, C.P.C., with a prayer that his alleged signature appearing on sale agreement be sent to a writing expert for his opinion---Civil Court dismissed the said application as such procedure would consume time particularly when a remedy was available under art. 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, where the Court itself was competent to compare the signatures in order to effectively resolve the subject controversy---Trial Court scrutinized the written statement filed by the defendant alongside his CNIC to examine signature of defendant carefully and compared it with the signatures shown on the backside of sale agreement---Trial Court in its judgment had reproduced the images of the signatures which through the naked eye appeared to be totally different---Having made those ocular observations, the Trial Court went into a deep discussion on the subject---Trial Court observed inconsistencies between the deposition of witness and the plaintiff---Trial Court highlighted the discrepancies between the statement of other witness made in contrast to the other witnesses whereupon it concluded that there were serious inconsistencies with regard to writing and signing of the agreement, receipt of the cash and cheque and handing over of the possession of the suit land from the seller to the buyer---With regard to the controversy that who collected payment of Rs.200,000/- while encashing a cheque, the Trial Court perused a copy of the said cheque, which was produced by the Bank Manager concerned and found that the signatures on the back side of the cheque of the person receiving the money were totally different than those of the seller, which negated the assertion of the plaintiff that the defendant collected proceeds of the cheque---On the said grounds, the Trial Court empowered by art. 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, concluded that the signatures of the defendant on the agreement did not tally---appellate Court had instead chosen to consider the testimony of the plaintiff in isolation, while ignoring the discrepancies and inconsistencies present therein, as highlighted in the judgment of the Trial Court---appellate Court completely ignored the fact that while all the witnesses stated that they knew the defendant for years and years, they could not answer simple question as to what was the profession of the said defendant or whether he lived in a small town---Case of the present appellant in the such circumstances that a scheme was cooked up by the respondent where an allegedly fake agreement was engineered and its witnesses colluded with each other, in isolation of the manner as to how the money was transferred and how the possession was handed over, appeared to be more plausible---Hence, the appellate Court's judgment seemed to be result of misreading and non-reading of the evidence, whereas the trial Court's judgment appeared to stand on solid foundations---appeal was allowed, in circumstances, by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court.

Naeem Ahmed khan vs Darya Khan art — 2024 MLD 689 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD