MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs ZULFIQAR and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, which was dismissed by the trial court, affirmed by the appellate court, and subsequently upheld by the Lahore High Court in civil revision. The primary legal controversy concerns whether a plaintiff is legally obligated to examine all attesting witnesses to an agreement to sell to prove the validity of the contract. The petitioner contended that the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit solely due to the failure to examine one of the attesting witnesses, arguing that an agreement to sell does not constitute a perfect contract of sale and thus does not require registration under the relevant property laws. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, noting that leave to appeal had already been granted in a prior, identical matter (Civil Petition No. 1368/L of 1993) regarding the necessity of examining such witnesses, determined that the instant petition raised a substantial question of law requiring further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to resolve this recurring legal issue.
- Is it mandatory for a plaintiff to examine all attesting witnesses to prove an agreement to sell in a suit for specific performance?
- Does an agreement to sell constitute a perfect contract of sale requiring registration under the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Section 54, Transfer of Property Act 1882
ORDER
' ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.---Through this petition the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 14-11-1995 passed by the learned Lahore High Court, dismissing the Civil Revision No,2274 of 1995 filed by the petitioner against the judgments of the learned Additional District Judge, Okara, dated 18-9-1995, and the learned Civil Judge, Depalpur, dated 16-10-1994.
2. The petitioner's suit for specific performance filed against the respondents was dismissed by the trial Court inter alia on the ground that one of the attesting witnesses of the agreement to sale was not .Examined by the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the Civil Revision filed by him was also met the same fate. Hence this petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit filed by him was dismissed substantially on the ground that he had failed to examine one of the attesting witnesses; that this Court in Civil Petition No,1368/L of 1993 had granted leave on this identical point whether it was incumbent on the plaintiff to examine the witnesses attesting the agreement to sale for the reason that the agreement to sale is not a perfect contract of sale, and as such, did not require registration under section 54 of the Transfer of Property, Act.
4. Since on the same point leave has been already granted in Civil Petition No,1368/L of 1993, we grant leave in this petition also.
Cited by 1 case
- SULTAN-UL-ARIFEEN Versus Mst. MUSARRAT SHAHEEN 2025 PLD 155