MUHAMMAD SABIR AWAN through LRs, and others vs PAKISTAN DEFENCE
This matter arises from a civil suit decreed by the High Court of Sindh, which was subsequently upheld in a High Court appeal. The core legal question pertained to the establishment of an oral agreement to sell, the payment of consideration, and the refusal of the appellate court to allow additional evidence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the alleged oral agreement, as neither the agreement itself nor key witnesses such as the petitioner's brother and the broker were produced in evidence. Furthermore, receipts of payment not part of the original trial record cannot be produced at the appellate stage without valid legal justification. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal, reinforcing the principle that foundational facts and documents must be duly proved through primary evidence during trial and cannot be arbitrarily introduced at the appellate stage.
- Can an oral agreement to sell be considered proved without producing the agreement or key witnesses involved?
- Whether additional evidence in the form of unproduced receipts can be allowed at the appellate stage without proper justification?
- Does the refusal of an appellate court to allow additional evidence warrant interference by the Supreme Court when findings are well-reasoned?
ORDER
' GULZAR AHMED, J.---Respondent No, 3 had filed a suit in the High Court of Sindh at Karachi, which was decreed vide judgment and decree respectively dated 19.03.2005 and 12.04.2005. The said judgment and decree was challenged by filing High Court Appeal No, 111/2015, which too was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2015.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
3. The submission of die learned counsel for the petitioners was that there was an oral agreement for purchasing the suit property between the petitioner and Respondent No,3 and that the petitioner had made payment of the consideration amount and that the petitioner was not allowed to produce additional evidence by the appellate Court.
4. We have noted from the record that the agreement to sell, claimed by the petitioner, is stated to have been entered into by the petitioner's brother with Respondent No,3 with the assistance of broker Shahid Aleem. Neither the agreement or its terms have brought on record nor the petitioner's brother or Shahid Aleem was produced in evidence by the petitioner. Thus the very agreement claimed by the petitioner did not stand proved.
5. As regard the payment of consideration, the petitioner's counsel has relied upon the receipt appearing at page-9 of C.M.A. No,816-K/2016. It was admitted by the learned ASC that this very receipt was not produced in evidence and did not form part of the record of the original suit.He however, complained that petitioner ought to have been allowed to produce evidence before the appellate Court. We are afraid that such an argument of the petitioner's counsel is not sustainable and that this very question has very elaborately been dealt with by the learned Division Bench of the High Court. Nothing has been shown to us on the basis of which the impugned judgment can be interfered by us, which is unexceptionable. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave refused.