MUNIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Ss — 2026 CLC 520 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.

MUNIR AHMAD VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Ss.12 & 22---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17 & 79---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell---Vendor denying execution of agreement---Proof---Production of two attesting witnesses---Mandatory requirement---Vendee producing only one attesting witness---Effect---Agreement to sell cannot be proved in circumstances and discretionary relief cannot be granted---Briefly, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for possession through specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell viz. the suit property; the petitioner/defendant denied executing any such agreement and contested the claim; the suit and connected proceedings travelled through trial and appeal, including remand directions to re-record certain witnesses, culminating in the trial court judgment and decree and then the appellate judgment and decree which set aside the Trial Court's decision and decreed the respondent's suit, leading the petitioner to file the present civil revision under S.115, C.P.C. challenging the legality of the appellate decree---Pivotal question requiring determination before the High Court was as to "whether the agreement to sell in question, being disputed, was proved in accordance with Arts. 17 & 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 so as to lawfully sustain a decree for specific performance/possession, and if not, whether the appellate judgment and decree called for interference in revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under S.115, C.P.C.?"---Held: The petitioner unambiguously denied the execution of any such agreement---Under Art.17 read with Art.79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, plaintiff/respondent was duty bound to prove the genuineness of the said document through cogent, confidence inspiring and independent evidence---Out of two witnesses, only one witness was examined and the petitioner failed to produce the other marginal witness of agreement---No sufficient reason for his non-production was brought on record---Even the respondent/plaintiff did not make any efforts to summon him through Court---The provisions of Art.79 were mandatory and non-compliance thereof rendered agreement as inadmissible in evidence---The evidence produced by the respondent/plaintiff was full of contradictions and on the basis of such type of evidence no decree for specific performance could be passed especially when the respondent/plaintiff had badly failed to prove genuineness of a valid agreement to sell in his favour, therefore, the Appellant Court erred in law while allowing the appeal of respondent/plaintiff and decreeing the suit---Judgment and decree of the Appellate Court was a result of non-reading and misreading of evidence and same was set aside---Present civil revision was allowed, in circumstances.

MUNIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Ss — 2026 CLC 520 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC