Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD BASHIR AHMAD Versus Syed ALI ABBAS
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of the petitioner's suit for specific performance of a contract. The petitioner filed the suit on 26-5-1985, seeking specific performance based on an agreement to sell, which was contested by the respondent and eventually dismissed by the trial court on 15-10-1989. An ensuing appeal to the High Court was likewise dismissed on 25-4-1993. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the execution of the agreement to sell and the payment of earnest money suffered from non-reading and misreading of evidence. Upon hearing counsel, the Supreme Court held that the contentions required consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts' findings on specific issues suffered from misreading of evidence or ignored material pieces of evidence on record.
- Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below on the execution of an agreement to sell suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence?
- Can leave to appeal be granted when the lower courts have allegedly ignored material pieces of evidence on record?
ORDER
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal which is directed against the judgment dated 25-4-1993 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Regular First Appeal No, 156 of 1989, arises from the facts that on 26-5-1985, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract against Syed Ali Abbas, the respondent, in the Court of Civil Judge, Sheikhupura. The .Suit was resisted. Issues were framed. Parties led evidence. The suit was dismissed on 15-10-1989. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal in. The Lahore High Court, Lahore, which was dismissed on 25-4-1993.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has proved the execution of the agreement to sell in his favour by the respondent through reliable evidence of marginal witnesses supported by handwriting expert and has also proved the payment of Rs,2,60,000 as earnest money to the respondent through oral and documentary evidence; and that the concurrent findings of the Courts below on the question of execution of the agreement to sell and the payment of the earnest money suffer from non-reading and misreading of the evidence.
3.After hearing the learned counsel and going through the material placed on record we feel that the contentions raised by the learned counsel require consideration. Hence, leave to appeal is granted to consider as to whether or not the findings of the Courts below on Issues Nos. 2 and 3 suffer from misreading of evidence, or the Courts had arrived at findings ignoring any material piece of evidence on record.
Interim order dated 11-7-1993 to continue till the hearing of the appeal.
Judges on this bench
- Ajmal Mian2,984 judgments
- Muhammad Munir Khan2,344 judgments