NASIR ALI vs Mst — 2025 CLC 885 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

NASIR ALI VS Mst. RAHEELA MAHDI S. 54---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. III, Rr.1 & 2 & O. VI, R. 17---Qanun-e-Shahad (10 of 1984), arts. 17, 79 & 129(g)---Suit for specific performance---Oral sale of immoveable property---Burden of proof---absence of specific details as to time, date, place and witnesses of sale---Non-production of any independent witness---Non-appearance of respondent as witness---appearance of husband of respondent as her attorney, who was an advocate---Filing of application for amendment in the plaint by the respondent while changing the entire description of the property in dispute---Dishonest improvements in the evidence on part of the respondent---Irregularity in the report of local commission---Concurrent decisions by trial and appellate courts---Held, that time, date and names of witnesses were mentioned in the plaint, however, exact place and time of the negotiations, which led to the conclusion of the oral agreement, were missing in the plaint---Maxim "allegans Contraria Non Est audiendus" (a person who alleges things contradictory to each other is not to be heard) disentitled the respondent to any relief---None of the witnesses stated that the special attorney of the respondent (her husband) was present at the time of conclusion of the oral agreement and that he took the possession---To such extent improvement was made by PW.3---In case of specific performance of the oral agreements improvements beyond pleadings are to be discarded---Where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct---Two marginal witnesses of the transaction were also not independent, as PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 were husband, son and domestic servant of the respondent, respectively---Suit was time barred as oral agreement was stated to have been concluded on 02.06.2007, whereas, the suit was instituted on 18.06.2019---Civil cases are to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence---Courts are obligated to overall appreciate the evidence available on record---Report of local commission and a minor weakness in the petitioner's statement had been made basis by Courts below for rendering their findings---Neither report of the local commission, which was full of irregularities, nor weaknesses of the petitioner's case could be made basis of passing a decree in the suit for specific performance of contract instituted on the basis of an oral agreement to sell, which agreement was not concluded in presence of any independent witness and the record clearly depicted glaring contradictions in statements of PWs. qua the execution of said oral agreement---Concurrent findings of the courts below were result of grave misreading and non-reading of evidence and incorrect application of settled principles of law governing grant of decree in a suit for specific performance of oral agreement---Civil revision was allowed, in circumstances.

NASIR ALI vs Mst — 2025 CLC 885 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC