Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1199 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL Ss

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

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1199 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL Ss. 12 & 54---Suit for specific performance and permanent injunction---Documentary evidence--- Proof---Petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and permanent injunction against the respondent for his property measuring 01-kanal, 04-marlas against a consideration of Rs. 4,50,00,000/----Petitioner paid Rs. 52,50,000/- earnest money---Petitioner contended that he always remained ready to perform his part of obligation but the respondent refused to do the needful on his part---Trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner, however, amount of Rs.52,00,000/-received by the respondent from the petitioner, being not earnest money, was held liable to be returned by the respondent to the petitioner with an additional amount of Rs. 30,00,000/-, keeping in view the depreciation of money and increase in value of the property---Both the parties preferred separate appeals---Appeal of the respondent was dismissed but the appeal of petitioner was accepted with modification in the judgment that the petitioner shall be entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- from the respondent---Validity---In this case, from the side of petitioner total three witnesses were produced, whereas from the other side, only the respondent himself appeared as witness---Only one document was exhibited by petitioner in his statement, whereas the remaining documents were exhibited/marked through the statements of counsel for the parties and not through the testimonies of either witnesses of petitioner or respondent---Mere marking of a document as an exhibit would not dispense with requirement of proving the same and the same could not be exhibited unless it was proved---Documents not brought on the record through witnesses' testimonies could not be taken into consideration by the Court---In this regard, both the Courts below had failed to adopt the said procedure of law---In addition to that, the reading of documents in evidence without observing legal requirements of Art. 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, would be illegal---Trial Court had totally travelled beyond its jurisdiction with regards to the recording of evidence with particular reference to the documentary evidence, therefore, civil revisions were allowed by setting aside the impugned judgments/ decrees of both the Courts below and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for a decision afresh after recording total evidence of the parties.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1199 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL Ss — 2024 YLR 1199 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR