Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 SCMR 551
Court / Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year of Decision: 2025
Decision Date: 2025-01-02
Parties: Akhtar Waheed vs Muhammad Hussain and others
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 2025-01-02, officially reported as 2025 SCMR 551. In this matter between Akhtar Waheed and Muhammad Hussain and others, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
Case cited as 2025 SCMR 551
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Amin-Ud-Din Khan, Musarrat Hilali Title: Akhtar Waheed vs Muhammad Hussain and others Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 26-L of 2024 Date of Judgment:2025-01-02 Reported As: 2025 SCMR 551 Result: Appeal dismissed
Judgment
ORDER AM IN UD DIN KHAN, J. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell whereas respondent No.1 ('the respondent') filed a suit for cancellation of the said document. The Trial Court was pleased to decree the suit of the appellant vide judgment and decree dated 14.06.2012 directing the respondent to return earnest money of Rs.230,000/- as well as equal amount thereto i.e. Rs.230,000/- to the appellant, whereas, suit of the respondent for cancellation of the said document was dismissed. The Appellate Court through a consolidated judgment dated 29.10.2016 accepted the appeal filed by the appellant and decreed the suit for specific performance whereas the appeal of the respondent was dismissed. The respondent filed a civil revision which was allowed, through the impugned judgment whereby suit for specific performance was dismissed while suit for cancellation of document was decreed. Hence this appeal. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length. Learned counsel for the respondent is available as a caveator. The alleged agreement consists upon two pages; first page does not contain signatures/thumb impressions of any of the parties as well as witnesses, while page-2 contains signatures/thumb impressions which were also exhibited as Exh.PW-1 /5, Exh.PW- 1/8, etc. during the statement of the plaintiff/appellant. If first page of agreement is taken out of consideration, as it does not contain signatures/thumb impressions of any of the parties as well as of the witnesses, the suit for specific performance cannot be decreed. We have carefully gone through the findings recorded by the learned High Court whereby Civil Revision filed by respondent was accepted and his suit for cancellation of document was decreed whereas suit of the appellant
---
## Page 2
for specific performance was dismissed. The learned High Court has thoroughly evaluated the documentary; as well as oral evidence and on the basis of true interpretation of the evidence came to a conclusion which is in the light of law declared by this Court. 3. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the High Court is correct and we cannot disagree with the same. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.