ALI AHMAD vs FAIZ AHMAD
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge the dismissal of a revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the appellate court's decree in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerned the effect of a disputed relinquishment document regarding pre-emption rights, where the respondent had previously denied its execution and taken a special oath on the Holy Quran in a separate litigation, leading to that prior suit being decreed in his favour. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not rely on the same disputed document in the subsequent pre-emption suit after the respondent had successfully denied its execution through a special oath agreed upon by the parties in the earlier proceedings. The Court established that a party who disputes a document and successfully negates its execution through a special oath binding on the parties cannot be held bound by that same document in collateral proceedings, and the concurrent findings regarding the lack of proof of the document do not warrant interference. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Can a party rely on a document in a pre-emption suit whose execution was previously denied by the opposing party and resolved through a special oath on the Holy Quran in a prior proceeding?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the lack of proof of a relinquishment document warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does the taking of a special oath regarding the non-execution of a document in one suit affect its admissibility and proof in subsequent litigation between the same parties?
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--Faiz Ahmad respondent had filed a suit against Ali Ahmad petitioner regarding the sale of land measuring 9 Kanals and some Marlas. In that suit the parties agreed that if Faiz Ahmad made special oath on the Holy Quran that he had not executed and signed the document Exh.D/1 that suit be decreed in favour of Faiz Ahmad. The oath was taken by Faiz Ahmad that he had not dxecuted or signed the document Exh.D/1, and, therefore, that suit was decreed in favour of Faiz Ahmad.
2. Faiz Ahmad respondent filed another suit for pre-emption regarding 23 Kanals and 18 Marlas of land purchased by Ali Ahmad. Before the purchase of this land, document EXh.D/1 was written in which it was stated that Faiz Ahmad and others have relinquished their rights of pre-emption regarding 23 Kanals and 18 Marlas of land. The trial Court held that the document Exh.D/1 was duly proved on the basis of oral evidence, and consequently, dismissed respondent Faiz Ahmad's suit.
He filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, per order dated 2- 5-1985 and suit was decreed holding that the document Exh . D / 1 was not proved. Against this judgment and decree, revision petition was filed which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 30-9-1985.
3. By this petition leave is now sought to appeal against the impugned judgment on the ground that petitioner had purchased the land not only with the consent of the respondent but also that the latter had agreed in writing to relinquish his right of pre-emption. Exh.D/l.Is the document upon which the petitioner placed reliance. A careful reading of the said documents does show that Faiz Ahmad respondent had in unequivocal terms, relinquished his right to pre-empt the land but this document became disputed matter in another suit for pre-emption of an area of nine Kanals purchased by the petitioner and pre-empted by the present respondent. The respondent, however, denied execution of the A said document whereupon the petitioner offered him to take special oath as to its authenticity. The respondent accepted the offer and took a special oath and in fact, made it on Holy Quran denying the execution of the said document Exh.D/1 in that suit. The same document was made the mainstay of the petitioner's case in the suit relating to land measuring 23 Kanals and 18 Marlas. The trial Court held it to be a genuine document but the learned District Judge disagreed regarding its authenticity and so Learned High Court Judge. We find no substance in this petition refused, Petition is, consequently, dismissed.