Muhammad Saeed Mughal vs Mian Muhammad Latif Ss — 2025 MLD 804 ISLAMABAD

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

Muhammad Saeed Mughal VS Mian Muhammad Latif Ss. 12, 42 & 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.71 & 79---Suit for specific performance, declaration, recovery of damages and permanent injunction---Registered agreement to sell---Fraud and forgery---Burden of proof, shifting of---Proof of execution of registered document---Requirement of specific denial by executor Representation of respondents through special attorneys---Non-appearance of respondents before the Trial Court to testify---Adverse inference---Substitution of evidence of special attorney in place of principal---Scope---Non-filing of application for verification of signatures by the respondents on the agreement to sell---Failure of respondents to discharge evidentiary burden---Misapplication of law by the appellate court---Judgments at variance---Suit was decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the petitioner, whereas, the appeal preferred by the respondents was accepted---Validity---Written statements were filed by the special attorneys appointed by respondents and they chose not to appear before the Trial Court to represent themselves or adduce evidence in relation to the petitioner's claim---Respondents also chose not to testify before the Trial Court and it was only their special attorney, who testified as DW-1---Where a registered document is the product of fraud and forgery, it is for such party to first establish through evidence that fraud or forgery were affected by the claimant by producing evidence before the court after which the burden would shift back on the claimant to prove the execution of such registered document---Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 (Order), provides that a registered document need not be proved by production of two attesting witnesses, "unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied."---Special attorney acknowledged that he had testified in his capacity as special attorney and did not claim to either be a witness to the transactions-in-question or have any personal knowledge of the same---Only respondent could personally testify by entering the witness box and disputing the fact that he had executed the registered agreement, who neither entered into the witness box nor presented himself to be cross-examined by the petitioner---Respondents filed no application to have the signatures of respondent verified on the agreement and/or the payment receipts to determine whether they were indeed the signatures of respondent or not---The only evidence denying the execution and content of the agreement was the testimony of DW-1, special attorney for respondents, who was not privy to the facts and presented hearsay evidence which was not admissible in terms of Art.71 of the Order, thus, Trial Court correctly held that respondents had failed to discharge the evidential burden of proving that the agreement was never executed and the agreement and its registration was a product of fraud and forgery, thus, onus of proving the agreement never shifted back to the petitioner---Appellate Court misapplied the law in terms of Art.79 of the Order and also did not take into account the finding of the Trial Court in terms of Art. 71 of the Order, where it had disregarded the testimony of the special attorney being hearsay evidence of a special attorney not privy to the facts in relation to which he sought to testify---Civil revision was allowed, in circumstances and judgment and decree of Trial Court was reaffirmed and upheld.

Muhammad Saeed Mughal vs Mian Muhammad Latif Ss — 2025 MLD 804 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD