ALLAH DITTA vs Haji MURAD ALI
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that accepted a revision petition regarding a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The core legal question concerned whether the original sale agreement, for which the full consideration was admittedly paid, had been validly revoked through a Panchayat decision. The trial court initially dismissed the suit based on the alleged revocation, but after a remand and subsequent proceedings, the trial court decreed the suit, finding no credible evidence of such a Panchayat or arbitration. The First Appellate Court reversed this, but the High Court, upon re-evaluating the evidence, found the First Appellate Court’s judgment was based on misreading and misconstruction of evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the findings of the High Court were correct and that the petitioner failed to substantiate the claim of revocation. The Court emphasized that where lower appellate courts misread evidence, the High Court is justified in re-examining the record to ensure the correct legal outcome, ultimately upholding the specific performance decree.
- Whether a High Court in civil revision is justified in re-evaluating evidence when the findings of the lower courts are at variance?
- Does the failure of an alleged arbitrator to pay over funds to a party invalidate the underlying agreement of sale?
- Can a party claim revocation of a sale agreement based on a Panchayat decision without proving the existence and validity of such arbitration?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--This petition is directed against the judgment dated 17-2-2003 of the Lahore High Court, whereby revision petition filed by the respondent has been accepted.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner admittedly executed on 25-8-1980 an agreement of sale in dispute for an amount of Rs,11,500. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the entire amount of consideratibn was paid to the respondents.
3. The respondent on 14-9-1989 filed the present suit for specific performance of the said agreement of sale which was contested on the ground that subsequently the dispute concerning it was referred to Punchayat, according to the decision of which it was revoked and an amount of Rs,11,550 was received by the respondent/plaintiff as such it was not legally enforceable.
4. The trial Court in the first round of litigation on 5-7-1992 dismissed the suit by holding that the agreement of sale had been revoked through the decision of the Punchayat. An appeal was filed by the respondent/plaintiff before the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala. During the pendency of the appeal an offer was made by the respondent/appellant that if Azmatullah the alleged Arbitrator, who allegedly received the said amount from the petitioner would state on oath of Holy Quran, that it had been paid to him, his appeal may be dismissed. The offer with this limited scope was accepted by the petitioner and Azmatullah when appeared categorically stated that the said amount was not paid to the respondents, therefore, the appeal was accepted through judgment dated 19-1-1996 and the suit remanded for disposal afresh after framing additional issues on the question of revocation.
5. The trial Court in post-remand proceedings considering the evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that no Punchayat or arbitration took place and since the execution of sale agreement and receipt of consideration( amount had been admitted therefore, it proceeded to pass decree through judgment dated 28-3-1997. An appeal filed by the petitioner was accepted by the First Appellate Court through judgment dated 3-6-1999 which came to the conclusion that there was Punchayat and merely because Azmatullah Arbitrator did not pay the amount received from the petitioner to the respondent/plaintiff would not make any difference and respondent/plaintiff may recover the said amount from him. Civil Revision petition filed by the petitioner before the High Court has been accepted through the impugned judgment dated 17-2- 2003 against which leave is sought.
6. Since the judgments of the two immediate Courts below were at variance, therefore, the learned Judge in Chamber took pain, to go through the entire evidence to satisfy himself, whether there was any misreading of the evidence or otherwise as such the judgment of the First Appellate Court is sustainable or not. Learned Judge in Chamber came to the conclusion that the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court was based on misreading and misconstruction of the evidence.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the findings recorded by the three Courts below and have found that findings of the learned Judge in Chamber in the impugned judgment are correct. Learned counsel for the petitioners when questioned by us as to why if the agreement 'of sale in pursuance of decision of Punchayat, the agreement be revoked within one year of its execution as alleged, the petitioner did not take any steps to see whether an amount received by arbitrator had been paid to the respondents. He submitted that there was a dispute between the parties as to from which side the area of 7 Marlas out of 10 Marlas of the petitioner had been agreed to be sold. This reason has no basis, for if the agreement stood revoked, there was no question of any dispute about this portion agreed to be sold.
8. The findings recorded by the learned Judge of the High Court affirming those of the trial Court in this case do not suffer from any illegality, therefore, this petition has no merits, which is accordingly dismissed and .