Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ANWAR BIBI VS Respondent: HAMADHonorable Justice GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA
1988 S C M R 1767
1988 S C M R 1767
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javed Iqbal and Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, JJ
Mst. ANWAR BIBI‑‑Petitioner
versus
HAMAD and 6 others Respondents
Civil Petition No.446 of 1988, decided on 27th June, 1988.
(On appeal from judgment of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 18‑4‑1938 in R.S.A. No.62 of 1988).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Appreciation of evidence it for specific performance‑‑Agreement to sell agricultural land Suit decreed in appeal and judgment confirmed by High Court‑‑No legal flaw pointed out in impugned judgment‑‑No misreading or non‑reading of evidence pointed out‑‑Not being a fit case for leave to appeal, petition dismissed.
Mian Nazir Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 27th June, 1988.
JUDGMENT
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is not a fit case for leave to appeal. Dismissed.
M.I./A‑276/S Petition dismissed.