Citation Name: 2025 PLD 386 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ABDUL KHALIQUE RIND vs RAEES ALI AKBAR

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: 2025 PLD 386 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ABDUL KHALIQUE RIND VS RAEES ALI AKBAR S.12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.17, 75, 76 & 79---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Execution of agreement to sell, denial of---Proof---Producing two attesting witnesses of the agreement, requirement of---Producing original copies of the documents relied upon, requirement of---Primary and secondary evidence---Principle---The petitioner (vendee) filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell claiming to have made part payments and that the respondent No.1 (vendor) failed to execute the final transfer of the property---The respondent (vendor) acknowledged the existence of the first sale agreement, but disputed the date, place of execution, agents, and some terms---A second agreement was executed extending the final payment deadline---Only a photocopy of the first page was submitted, whereas, pages 2 to 4 lacked signatures of parties---Trial Court dismissed the suit for lack of original documentary evidence and failure to examine attesting witnesses---The appellate court upheld this dismissal of Trial Court---Points for consideration before the High Court in the present revision petition were as to "whether the petitioner/vendee, having failed to produce the original sale agreement and examine attesting witnesses in accordance with the mandate of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, could validly seek specific performance of the alleged agreements, particularly where the existence of a second agreement and compliance with contractual obligations remained unproven"---Held: Petitioner did not examine the two attesting witnesses of the agreements of sale, instead, he opted to examine his son, who was not an attesting witness, therefore, the petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements stipulated under Arts. 17 & 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Petitioner neither pleaded nor provided any substantiating evidence regarding the loss or destruction of the original documents annexed with the plaint---Furthermore, no effort was made to invoke the provisions of Arts. 75 & 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which prescribed the conditions for the admissibility of secondary evidence---In the absence of adherence to these legal prerequisites, and in view of the well-established jurisprudence, the suit lacked legal sustainability on this ground alone---It is settled law that documentary evidence must be presented in its original form unless exceptional circumstances justify the reliance on secondary evidence---The petitioner's reliance on photocopies, without fulfilling the necessary legal requirements for admissibility under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, lacked evidentiary weight---Additionally, significant discrepancies in witness testimonies and inconsistencies in the documentary evidence cast serious doubt on the authenticity and enforceability of the purported agreement---Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 PLD 386 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ABDUL KHALIQUE RIND vs RAEES ALI AKBAR S — 2025 PLD 386 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD