Zahid Mahmood vs Sabir Hussain arts — 2025 MLD 271 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.

Zahid Mahmood VS Sabir Hussain arts.34 & 79---Specific Relief act ( I of 1877 ), S. 12---Suit for specific performance---agreement-to-sell, execution of---admission---Scope and proof---assertion of the plaintiffs/petitioners was that transaction of sale was settled with the defendant / respondent and agreement and receipt were scribed, yet said stance was strongly controverted by the latter while raising serious allegations with regard to its genuineness as well as transaction detailed therein--- Plaintiffs were concurrently non-suited---Contention of the petitioners/plaintiffs was that the defendant(vendor/respondent) while adducing his own evidence ,during cross-examination , made an admission that if his signature on alleged agreement were proved to be positive under forensic science , then the plaintiffs was be termed as truthful and, they would be entitled for decree in wake of positive report to said effect---Validity---admission of a party in ignorance of legal rights has no legal effect, which being wrong on point of fact is also not admissible---Respondent/defendant might have been under an illusion or delusion that report would never come against his version, therefore , he had made the aforesaid statement, which even otherwise was shrouded in mystery and was uncertain at the time when it was worded---Said statement of respondent was based upon a result to be received in future--- In terms of art. 34 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 ('the Order 1984') , an admission even if considered to be a legal right is just a relevant fact, however it cannot be taken as conclusive proof against a party making it--- In particular backdrop of the case, the statement made by the defendant / respondent for sending his signatures/thumb impressions to the expert was not an admission as defined in relevant provision of the Order, 1984 as nowhere it was claimed that these were his thumb impressions, who since inception of litigation was claiming those to be forged and fictitious---Petitioners had already concluded their evidence and by mere resort to the aforesaid exercise, they could not be absolved of the mandatory requirement of law as detailed in art. 79 of the Order, 1984 to prove the execution of alleged agreement, which entailed financial liability and future obligation---No material irregularity/illegality as well as jurisdictional defect or mis-reading of evidence was found in the impugned judgments of two Courts below; thus, no case of interference was made out---Revision filed by plaintiffs, being merit-less, was dismissed in limine.

Zahid Mahmood vs Sabir Hussain arts — 2025 MLD 271 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD