ANWAR BIBI Versus HAMAD
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by Mst. Anwar Bibi against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed her regular second appeal in limine, thereby affirming the decree of the Additional District Judge, Sahiwal. The underlying dispute originated from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land measuring 112 kanals and 18 marlas, initiated by the respondents. While the trial court initially dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the execution of the agreement or the payment of earnest money, the appellate court reversed this decision and decreed the suit. The petitioner contended that as a Pardah observing lady, the agreement was not legally proved and no consideration was paid. The Supreme Court examined the petition and found that the High Court had thoroughly addressed all contentions raised by the petitioner. Observing that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal flaw, misreading, or non-consideration of evidence in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court held that the case did not warrant interference and dismissed the petition.
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be granted where the petitioner fails to demonstrate any legal flaw or misreading of evidence in the High Court judgment?
- Does the status of a Pardah observing lady automatically invalidate an agreement to sell if the execution of the agreement and payment of consideration are otherwise established by evidence?
1. GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J .‑‑Mst. Anwar Bibi daughter of Sultan Ahmed, resident of Chak 119/9‑L, District Sahiwal has filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court Multan Bench, dated 18‑4‑1988 whereby her regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, was dismissed in limine.
2. Dona and three others filed suit for specific performance with regard to land measuring 112 kanals and 18 marlas comprising Khewat No.12 situated in Chak 119/9‑L Tehsil and District Sahiwal, on the basis of a registered agreement to sell dated 15‑10‑1978. The suit was contested. The trial Court framed four issues, the important one being "Whether the defendant entered into an agreement of sale of disputed land in favour of the plaintiffs and received ‑Rs.1,00,000 as part payment.
3. After recording necessary evidence, the trial Court decided all the issues against the plaintiffs. With regard to the one, referred to above, the trial Court observed ‑that the plaintiffs had not been able to prove the execution of agreement as well as payment of earnest money. The suit was accordingly dismissed.
4. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the finding of the trial. Judge was reversed. The Additional District Judge, by judgment dated 25‑2‑1988, decreed the suit. This judgment was confirmed by the High Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition simply repeated the grounds which have been taken before the lower Court and the High Court. He submitted that the petitioner was a Pardah observing lady. The agreement to sell had not been legally proved. The petitioner was not paid a penny.
6. These contentions have no force because the Courts below especially the High Court dealt with all these points. Learned counsel, has not been able to point out any legal flaw in the judgment of the" High Court nor that any evidence was either misread or not considered.
7. It is not a fit case for leave to appeal. Dismissed.
8. M.I./A‑276/S Petition dismissed.