RAHIM BAKHSH vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND Anoterss
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld an appellate court's decision to remand a suit for specific performance of a land sale agreement. The core legal questions were whether the appellate court erred in framing an additional issue regarding the bona fide purchase of the suit land by a subsequent vendee, and whether certain judicial records (Exhibits P. 5 to P. 7) were admissible as evidence without establishing the identity of the deponents. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the framing of the additional issue was appropriate as it would narrow the controversy and resolve the case effectively without causing prejudice to the petitioner. Regarding the evidence, the Court affirmed that while judicial records are admissible under the Evidence Act, 1872, the identity of the persons who made the statements must be established for them to be relied upon. The Court established that a court may frame additional issues to clarify controversies, and that the admissibility of judicial records requires verification of the deponents' identities.
- Can an appellate court frame an additional issue to narrow the scope of a controversy in a suit for specific performance?
- Is the identity of a deponent required to be established before their statement from previous judicial proceedings can be admitted as evidence?
- Does the framing of an additional issue regarding a subsequent purchaser's notice of a prior agreement constitute a valid ground for remand?
- Section 74, Evidence Act 1872
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-Leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and orders of the Lahore High Court dated 3-6-1981 passed in Civil Revision No. 96/1980/BWP.
2. Ghulam Muhammad respondent entered into an agreement to sell 100 Kanals of land to Rahim Bakhsh petitioner for a sum of Rs. 42,000 and received an amount of Rs. 10,000 as earnest money with the stipulation that the balance will be paid within a year. The respondent failed to perform his part of the agreement and sold the land in question to Haji Nazir Ahmad respondent No. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance on 13-1-1973 while defendant No. 1 sold the land in question on 23-4-1973. The suit of the petitioner was decreed by the Civil Judge vide judgment dated 30-I1-1976. This judgment and decree was challenged in appeal by respon--dent No. 1 and the learned Additional District Judge on 18-3-1981 accepted the appeal, framed additional issue No. 5-A and remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh decision. Against this order of remand a revision was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 3-6- 1981.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from the plead--ings of the parties issue framed by the Additional District Judge does not arise that the learned High Court Judge had fallen into error by observing that documents Exhs. P. 5, P. 6, P. 7 were not admissible in evidence. It is wrongly observed that unless the identity of witness who had deposed in a Court of law was established, his statement could not be brought on the record and read into evidence. As Exhs. P. 5 to 7 have been proved without objection and could be objected to only at the time of reception.
We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find that the additional issue No. 5-A reads as "whether the defendant No. 2 had purchased the suit land for consideration and without notice of the agreement of sale dated 12-11-1971 between the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff, if so, with what effect"?
No prejudice would be caused to petitioner in the event of this newly added additional issue and it is correctly observed by the learned Judge of the High Court that it willnarrow down the controversy ultimately the decision of the case. As regards the second point that the statements Exhs. P. 5 to P. 7 brought on the file are admissible in evidence being part o the records of judicial proceedings under the amended provisions of section 74 of the Evidence Act, 1872 but before allowing the statements to form part of the proceedings identity of the persons who bad made these statements in Court, would appear necessary for the determination of the points involved in the case. Thus, we find that this petition is without any merit and the, same is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUKHTAR AHMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SHUJAAT KHAN And Other 1996 MLD 269
- MUKHTAR AHMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SHUJAAT KHAN and others 1996 MLD 269
- MUHAMMAD KHALID Versus FAKHRUDDIN 1992 MLD 884