Asif Siddiq Chaudhary Advocate

27/04/2026

Alhamdolilla

26/04/2026

26/04/2026

1. ٹرائل کس سیکشن کے تحت لگتا ہے؟
​ فوجداری ٹرائل کا آغاز مختلف عدالتوں میں مختلف دفعات کے تحت ہوتا ہے:
​مجسٹریٹ کی عدالت میں ٹرائل: یہ دفعہ 241-A سے 250 CrPC کے تحت ہوتا ہے۔
​سیشن عدالت میں ٹرائل: یہ دفعہ 265-A سے 265-N CrPC کے تحت ہوتا ہے۔
​جب پولیس دفعہ 173 CrPC کے تحت چالان (چاہے وہ مکمل ہو یا نامکمل) عدالت میں پیش کر دیتی ہے اور عدالت اس کا نوٹس (Cognizance) لے لیتی ہے، تو ٹرائل کا عمل شروع ہو جاتا ہے۔
​2. کیا ٹرائل کے دوران تفتیش ہو سکتی ہے؟
​جی ہاں، ٹرائل شروع ہونے کے بعد بھی تفتیش جاری رہ سکتی ہے۔ قانون کی نظر میں چالان پیش کرنا تفتیش کے دروازے بند نہیں کرتا۔
​دفعہ 173(8) CrPC: یہ دفعہ پولیس کو اختیار دیتی ہے کہ چالان جمع کروانے کے بعد بھی اگر کوئی نیا ثبوت یا گواہ سامنے آئے، تو وہ مزید تفتیش (Further Investigation) کر سکتی ہے۔
​سپلیمنٹری چالان (بقیہ چالان): مزید تفتیش کے نتیجے میں پولیس جو نئی رپورٹ تیار کرتی ہے، اسے "بقیہ چالان" کہا جاتا ہے اور اسے ٹرائل کے دوران کسی بھی وقت عدالت میں پیش کیا جا سکتا ہے۔
​3. تفتیش کب تک ہو سکتی ہے؟ (حدود و قیود)
​تفتیش کے حوالے سے وقت کی کوئی آخری حد مقرر نہیں ہے، لیکن اس کے لیے کچھ اصول ہیں:
​فیصلے سے پہلے تک: قانونی طور پر تفتیش اس وقت تک جاری رہ سکتی ہے جب تک عدالت اپنا حتمی فیصلہ (Judgment) نہ سنا دے۔
​عدالت کی اجازت: جب ٹرائل باقاعدہ شروع ہو چکا ہو، تو عام طور پر پولیس عدالت کو مطلع کرتی ہے کہ ہم مزید تفتیش کر رہے ہیں۔
​دوبارہ تفتیش (Re-investigation) بمقابلہ مزید تفتیش (Further Investigation): اعلیٰ عدالتوں (سپریم کورٹ) کے فیصلوں کے مطابق، پولیس "مزید تفتیش" تو کر سکتی ہے لیکن پورے کیس کی "دوبارہ تفتیش" (نئے سرے سے) کرنے کے لیے ٹھوس وجوہات اور بعض اوقات اعلیٰ پولیس افسران یا عدالت کی اجازت درکار ہوتی ہے۔
​4. اہم قانونی نظائر (Case Laws)
​PLD 2011 SC 616: سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ چالان پیش ہونے کا مطلب یہ نہیں کہ تفتیش ختم ہو گئی۔ اگر نئے حقائق سامنے آئیں تو پولیس دفعہ 173(8) کے تحت مزید تفتیش کر کے اضافی ثبوت پیش کر سکتی ہے۔
​2002 SCMR 542: عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ ٹرائل کے دوران بھی اگر تفتیشی ایجنسی کو لگے کہ کوئی بے گناہ پھنس گیا ہے یا اصل ملزم باہر ہے، تو وہ تفتیش جاری رکھ سکتی ہے۔

عدالتِ عالیہ (High Court)
سپریم کورٹ جب کسی ٹرائل کو جلد مکمل کرنے کا حکم دیتی ہے، تو اس کے لیے مخصوص وقت کا تعین کیس کی نوعیت اور عدالتی حکم پر منحصر ہوتا ہے۔ تاہم، اس حوالے سے عمومی قانونی اصول اور اہم فیصلوں کی تفصیل درج ذیل ہے:
1. ٹرائل مکمل کرنے کی مدت
عام طور پر جب ہائی کورٹ ٹرائل کورٹ کو ہدایت جاری کرتی ہے، تو وہ درج ذیل میں سے کوئی ایک مدت مقرر کرتی ہے:
3 ماہ (90 دن): زیادہ تر سنگین مقدمات میں عدالت 3 ماہ کے اندر ٹرائل مکمل کرنے کا حکم دیتی ہے۔
6 ماہ: پیچیدہ مقدمات میں جہاں گواہان کی تعداد زیادہ ہو، 6 ماہ کا وقت دیا جاتا ہے۔
روزانہ کی بنیاد پر سماعت (Day-to-Day Basis): اگر کیس بہت پرانا ہو یا ملزم کافی عرصے سے جیل میں ہو، تو عدالت روزانہ سماعت کا حکم بھی دے سکتی ہے۔
2. قانونی دفعات (CrPC)
دفعہ 344 CrPC: یہ دفعہ ٹرائل کے التوا (Adjournment) سے متعلق ہے۔ اعلیٰ عدالتیں اکثر اس دفعہ کا حوالہ دیتی ہیں کہ ٹرائل میں بلاوجہ التوا نہ دیا جائے۔
آرٹیکل 10-A (آئینِ پاکستان): یہ ہر شہری کو "فیئر ٹرائل" اور جلد انصاف کا حق دیتا ہے۔
3. اہم عدالتی فیصلے (Judgments)
اعلیٰ عدالتوں نے بارہا ٹرائل کی مدت کے حوالے سے سخت احکامات جاری کیے ہیں:
الف: ٹرائل کی مدت اور ضمانت (2021 SCMR 651 - سپریم کورٹ)
اس فیصلے میں سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ اگر ہائی کورٹ نے ٹرائل مکمل کرنے کے لیے کوئی وقت (مثلاً 4 ماہ) مقرر کیا تھا اور ٹرائل اس دوران مکمل نہیں ہوا، تو ملزم ضمانت (Bail) کے لیے دوبارہ رجوع کر سکتا ہے۔ عدالت نے اسے ملزم کے حقوق کی خلاف ورزی قرار دیا۔
ب: روزانہ سماعت کا حکم (PLD 2017 SC 733)
سپریم کورٹ نے ہدایت کی کہ وہ مقدمات جو ہائی کورٹ کی طرف سے "ٹائم باؤنڈ" (Time Bound) کیے گئے ہوں، ان کی سماعت روزانہ کی بنیاد پر ہونی چاہیے اور ٹرائل جج کو بلاوجہ التوا نہیں دینا چاہیے۔
ج: ٹرائل جج کی ذمہ داری (2019 YLR 1242 - لاہور ہائی کورٹ)
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے واضح کیا کہ اگر ٹرائل کورٹ ہائی کورٹ کے دیے گئے وقت کے اندر فیصلہ نہیں کر پاتی، تو ٹرائل جج کو ہائی کورٹ سے باقاعدہ "وقت میں توسیع" (Extension of Time) کی درخواست کرنی چاہیے، ورنہ اسے عدالتی حکم کی عدولی تصور کیا جا سکتا ہے۔
4. اگر ٹرائل مقررہ وقت پر مکمل نہ ہو تو کیا کریں؟
اگر ہائی کورٹ کے حکم کے باوجود ٹرائل لیٹ ہو رہا ہو، تو آپ کے پاس یہ قانونی راستے موجود ہیں:
درخواست برائے تعمیلِ حکم (Implementation Petition): اسی ہائی کورٹ میں متفرق درخواست دائر کریں جس نے حکم دیا تھا، تاکہ ٹرائل کورٹ سے جواب طلبی کی جائے۔
ضمانت کی نئی بنیاد: اگر ملزم جیل میں ہے، تو وقت گزرنے کو "تازہ گراؤنڈ" (Fresh Ground) بنا کر دوبارہ ضمانت کی درخواست دی جا سکتی ہے۔
توسیع کی مخالفت: اگر استغاثہ (Prosecution) تاخیری حربے استعمال کر رہا ہے، تو عدالت سے ان کے گواہان کا حقِ شہادت ختم کرنے کی استدعا کی جا سکتی ہے۔
قانون میں کوئی ایک فکس مدت نہیں ہے، لیکن ہائی کورٹ کا حکم حتمی ہوتا ہے۔ عموماً 3 سے 6 ماہ کا وقت دیا جاتا ہے۔ اگر اس دوران ٹرائل مکمل نہ ہو، تو ملزم کو ضمانت ملنے کے امکانات بہت بڑھ جاتے ہیں اور ٹرائل جج کو ہائی کورٹ میں جوابدہ ہونا پڑتا ہے۔

23/04/2026

چالان رپورٹ (دفعہ 173 مجموعہ ضابطہ فوجداری)
​جب پولیس تفتیش مکمل کر لیتی ہے، تو وہ دفعہ 173 CrPC کے تحت ایک رپورٹ تیار کرتی ہے جسے عام زبان میں "چالان" کہا جاتا ہے۔ یہ رپورٹ پراسیکیوٹر کے ذریعے علاقہ مجسٹریٹ کو پیش کی جاتی ہے۔
​1. چالان پیش کرنے کی مدت
​قانون کے مطابق تفتیشی افسر (IO) پابند ہے کہ وہ FIR کے اندراج کے 15 دن کے اندر چالان عدالت میں پیش کرے۔ اگر تفتیش مکمل نہ ہو سکے تو وہ ایک ناٹکمل چالان (Interim Report) جمع کروانے کا پابند ہے، جس کے لیے اسے مزید 3 دن کی مہلت مل سکتی ہے۔
​2. مدعی (Complainant) کے پاس قانونی حل (Remedies)
​اگر پولیس چالان پیش کرنے میں تاخیر کرے یا ٹال مٹول سے کام لے، تو مدعی درج ذیل اقدامات کر سکتا ہے:
​دفعہ 22-A/22-B CrPC: مدعی سیشن جج (جسٹس آف پیس) کی عدالت میں درخواست دے سکتا ہے کہ پولیس کو چالان فوری جمع کروانے کا حکم دیا جائے۔
​رٹ پٹیشن (آرٹیکل 199): ہائی کورٹ میں پولیس کے خلاف رٹ فائل کی جا سکتی ہے کہ وہ اپنی قانونی ذمہ داری پوری نہیں کر رہی۔
​اعلیٰ حکام کو شکایت: متعلقہ DPO یا SSP کو تفتیشی افسر کی سستی کے خلاف درخواست دی جا سکتی ہے۔
​3. ملزم (Accused) کے پاس قانونی حل (Remedies)
​چالان پیش نہ ہونے کی صورت میں ملزم کو درج ذیل ریلیف مل سکتے ہیں:
​ضمانت (Statutory Bail): اگر چالان مقررہ وقت پر نہ آئے اور ٹرائل میں غیر ضروری تاخیر ہو، تو ملزم دفعہ 497 CrPC کے تحت "تاخیر" کی بنیاد پر ضمانت کا حقدار بن جاتا ہے۔
​مجسٹریٹ کی مداخلت: ملزم کا وکیل عدالت میں استدعا کر سکتا ہے کہ جب تک چالان نہیں آتا، ملزم کو جوڈیشل ریمانڈ پر رکھنے کے بجائے رہا کیا جائے (اگر جرم سنگین نہ ہو)۔
​4. اعلیٰ عدالتوں کے فیصلے (Judgments)
​ناٹکمل چالان پر ٹرائل (PLD 2005 SC 204): سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ اگر مکمل چالان آنے میں وقت لگ رہا ہو، تو عدالت "ناٹکمل چالان" (Interim Report) پر بھی ٹرائل کا آغاز کر سکتی ہے تاکہ وقت ضائع نہ ہو۔
​چالان کی تاخیر اور ضمانت (2022 SCMR 1528): سپریم کورٹ نے واضح کیا کہ اگر پراسیکیوشن چالان پیش کرنے میں ناکام رہتی ہے، تو ملزم کو غیر معینہ مدت کے لیے جیل میں نہیں رکھا جا سکتا اور وہ ضمانت کا حقدار ہے۔
​پولیس کی ذمہ داری (2019 YLR 2623 LHC): لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے حکم دیا کہ چالان پیش کرنا تفتیشی افسر کی قانونی ڈیوٹی ہے، اور اس میں ناکامی پر افسر کے خلاف تادیبی کارروائی ہونی چاہیے۔
چالان رپورٹ (دفعہ 173 مجموعہ ضابطہ فوجداری)
جب پولیس تفتیش مکمل کر لیتی ہے، تو وہ دفعہ 173 CrPC کے تحت ایک رپورٹ تیار کرتی ہے جسے عام زبان میں "چالان" کہا جاتا ہے۔ یہ رپورٹ پراسیکیوٹر کے ذریعے علاقہ مجسٹریٹ کو پیش کی جاتی ہے۔
1. چالان پیش کرنے کی مدت
قانون کے مطابق تفتیشی افسر (IO) پابند ہے کہ وہ FIR کے اندراج کے 15 دن کے اندر چالان عدالت میں پیش کرے۔ اگر تفتیش مکمل نہ ہو سکے تو وہ ایک ناٹکمل چالان (Interim Report) جمع کروانے کا پابند ہے، جس کے لیے اسے مزید 3 دن کی مہلت مل سکتی ہے۔
2. مدعی (Complainant) کے پاس قانونی حل (Remedies)
اگر پولیس چالان پیش کرنے میں تاخیر کرے یا ٹال مٹول سے کام لے، تو مدعی درج ذیل اقدامات کر سکتا ہے:
دفعہ 22-A/22-B CrPC: مدعی سیشن جج (جسٹس آف پیس) کی عدالت میں درخواست دے سکتا ہے کہ پولیس کو چالان فوری جمع کروانے کا حکم دیا جائے۔
رٹ پٹیشن (آرٹیکل 199): ہائی کورٹ میں پولیس کے خلاف رٹ فائل کی جا سکتی ہے کہ وہ اپنی قانونی ذمہ داری پوری نہیں کر رہی۔
اعلیٰ حکام کو شکایت: متعلقہ DPO یا SSP کو تفتیشی افسر کی سستی کے خلاف درخواست دی جا سکتی ہے۔
3. ملزم (Accused) کے پاس قانونی حل (Remedies)
چالان پیش نہ ہونے کی صورت میں ملزم کو درج ذیل ریلیف مل سکتے ہیں:
ضمانت (Statutory Bail): اگر چالان مقررہ وقت پر نہ آئے اور ٹرائل میں غیر ضروری تاخیر ہو، تو ملزم دفعہ 497 CrPC کے تحت "تاخیر" کی بنیاد پر ضمانت کا حقدار بن جاتا ہے۔
مجسٹریٹ کی مداخلت: ملزم کا وکیل عدالت میں استدعا کر سکتا ہے کہ جب تک چالان نہیں آتا، ملزم کو جوڈیشل ریمانڈ پر رکھنے کے بجائے رہا کیا جائے (اگر جرم سنگین نہ ہو)۔
4. اعلیٰ عدالتوں کے فیصلے (Judgments)
ناٹکمل چالان پر ٹرائل (PLD 2005 SC 204): سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ اگر مکمل چالان آنے میں وقت لگ رہا ہو، تو عدالت "ناٹکمل چالان" (Interim Report) پر بھی ٹرائل کا آغاز کر سکتی ہے تاکہ وقت ضائع نہ ہو۔
چالان کی تاخیر اور ضمانت (2022 SCMR 1528): سپریم کورٹ نے واضح کیا کہ اگر پراسیکیوشن چالان پیش کرنے میں ناکام رہتی ہے، تو ملزم کو غیر معینہ مدت کے لیے جیل میں نہیں رکھا جا سکتا اور وہ ضمانت کا حقدار ہے۔
پولیس کی ذمہ داری (2019 YLR 2623 LHC): لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے حکم دیا کہ چالان پیش کرنا تفتیشی افسر کی قانونی ڈیوٹی ہے، اور اس میں ناکامی پر افسر کے خلاف تادیبی کارروائی ہونی چاہیے۔
خصوصیت مکمل چالان نامکمل چالان
وقت 15 دن کے اندر۔ اگر 15 دن میں کام ختم نہ ہو (3 دن کی اضافی مہلت کے ساتھ)۔
مقصد تفتیش کا حتمی نتیجہ عدالت کو بتانا۔ عدالت کو مطلع کرنا کہ تفتیش جاری ہے مگر اب تک یہ ثبوت ملے ہیں۔
ٹرائل کا آغاز فردِ جرم کے بعد شہادتیں شروع ہوتی ہیں۔ عدالت اس پر بھی ٹرائل شروع کر کے گواہ بلا سکتی ہے۔
ملزم کا فائدہ اگر ثبوت نہ ہوں تو ڈسچارج یا بریت۔ اگر چالان نامکمل رہے اور تاخیر ہو، تو ملزم ضمانت (Bail) کی استدعا کر سکتا ہے۔
اعلیٰ عدالتوں کی روشنی میں (Judgments)
ٹرائل میں تاخیر: اگر پولیس نہ مکمل چالان دے اور نہ ہی نامکمل، تو یہ ملزم کے "فیئر ٹرائل" کے حق کی خلاف ورزی ہے۔ عدالتیں ایسے کیسز میں ملزم کو Statutory Bail (قانی مدت گزرنے پر ضمانت) دینے کے حق میں ہوتی ہیں۔
عدالتی حکم: لاہور ہائی کورٹ کی مختلف نظائر کے مطابق، مجسٹریٹ یا ٹرائل جج پولیس کو مجبور کر سکتا ہے کہ وہ نامکمل چالان جمع کروائے تاکہ ملزم کے سر پر لٹکتی تلوار (Uncertainty) ختم ہو۔
آپ کے لیے مشورہ:
اگر آپ کا کیس لٹکا ہوا ہے اور پولیس چالان پیش نہیں کر رہی، تو 22-A/22-B CrPC کے تحت سیشن جج سے رجوع کریں تاکہ تفتیشی افسر کو پابند کیا جائے کہ وہ کم از کم نامکمل چالان ہی جمع کروائے تاکہ قانونی کارروائی آگے بڑھے۔

22/04/2026

⚖️ جعلی بیع نامہ — سنگین جرم اور اہم عدالتی اصول

جعلی بیع نامہ (Sale Deed) تیار کرنا ایک سنگین فوجداری جرم ہے، جس پر Pakistan Penal Code Section 467 کا اطلاق ہوتا ہے۔ اس جرم کی سزا عمر قید یا 10 سال تک قید ہو سکتی ہے۔

📌 اہم قانونی نکتہ

یہ ضروری نہیں کہ فراڈ یا جعلسازی کی رپورٹ صرف وہی شخص کرے جو براہِ راست متاثر ہوا ہو۔

👉 عدالت کے مطابق:
✔ جعلسازی صرف ایک فرد کے خلاف نہیں بلکہ پورے معاشرے کے خلاف جرم ہے
✔ کوئی بھی شہری اس کی اطلاع متعلقہ حکام کو دے سکتا ہے
✔ حتیٰ کہ اگر کوئی رپورٹ نہ بھی کرے، تو بھی حکام خود کارروائی کر سکتے ہیں

⚖️ عدالت کا مؤقف (اہم فیصلہ)

📚 کیس: Riaz Ahmad Vs The State (2025 LHC 2094)

✔ اگر تفتیشی افسر متعلقہ دفعہ (467 PPC) نہ بھی لگائے
👉 تب بھی عدالت درخواستِ ضمانت کے دوران خود جائزہ لے سکتی ہے

✔ جعلی بیع نامہ بنانے کا جرم
👉 ناقابلِ ضمانت جرائم (Criminal Procedure Code Section 497) میں آ سکتا ہے

🚨 نتیجہ

✔ جعلی دستاویزات بنانا انتہائی سنگین جرم ہے
✔ عدالت اس کو سختی سے دیکھتی ہے
✔ ضمانت حاصل کرنا مشکل ہو سکتا ہے

📞 قانونی رہنمائی کے لیے رابطہ کریں:
03004735835

📌 یہ پوسٹ صرف معلوماتی اور تعلیمی مقاصد کے لیے ہے

#قانون #پاکستان

21/04/2026

� “نکاح نامہ میں درج مہر کو ہلکا نہ لیں! عدالت کا بڑا فیصلہ
اس آئینی درخواست کے ذریعے درخواست گزار نے فیملی کورٹ اور ڈسٹرکٹ جج وہاڑی کے مورخہ 12.10.2024 اور 18.12.2024 کے فیصلوں کو چیلنج کیا ہے، جن کے ذریعے مدعا علیہ نمبر 3 (بیوی) کا حق مہر کی وصولی کا دعویٰ منظور کیا گیا۔

فریقین کی شادی 18.04.2011 کو ہوئی۔ نکاح کے وقت مہر 5000 روپے نقد، 5 تولہ چاندی اور 10 تولہ سونا مقرر ہوا۔ بیوی کا مؤقف تھا کہ مہر ادا نہیں ہوا، اس لیے وہ اس کی حقدار ہے۔ شوہر نے کہا کہ صرف 5000 روپے طے ہوئے اور ادا بھی کر دیے گئے، باقی اندراجات جعلی ہیں۔

ٹرائل کورٹ نے ثبوت سن کر دعویٰ منظور کیا، اپیل میں بھی فیصلہ برقرار رہا۔

درخواست گزار کے وکیل نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ نچلی عدالتوں نے شواہد کو غلط پڑھا اور 10 تولہ سونا دینے کا حکم قانون کے خلاف ہے کیونکہ اس کی قیمت 5 لاکھ روپے درج تھی۔

دوسری طرف بیوی کے وکیل نے کہا کہ نکاح نامہ ایک عوامی دستاویز ہے، جسے درست مانا جاتا ہے، اور شوہر اس کو غلط ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہا۔

عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ:
• نکاح نامہ درست ہے اور شوہر نے اس پر دستخط تسلیم کیے۔
• شوہر نے اس کے خلاف کبھی کوئی کارروائی نہیں کی۔
• مہر کی تمام اشیاء (نقد، چاندی، سونا) الگ الگ اور جمعی حیثیت رکھتی ہیں۔

خصوصاً 10 تولہ سونے کے بارے میں عدالت نے کہا کہ:
• اصل چیز سونا ہے، قیمت صرف اندازہ (indicative) ہے۔
• یہ نہیں کہا جا سکتا کہ صرف رقم ادا کرنی ہے۔

عدالت نے مزید کہا کہ:
• اگر سونا نہ دیا جائے تو اس کی موجودہ مارکیٹ ویلیو وصول کی جا سکتی ہے۔
• نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلے درست ہیں اور ان میں مداخلت کی ضرورت نہیں۔

لہٰذا درخواست خارج کر دی گئی۔

⸻

🔹 خلاصہ (Precise Summary)

یہ کیس حق مہر کی وصولی سے متعلق تھا، جس میں:
• نکاح نامہ کے مطابق مہر = 5000 روپے + 5 تولہ چاندی + 10 تولہ سونا
• شوہر نے سونے اور چاندی کو جعلی قرار دیا
• عدالت نے کہا:
• نکاح نامہ ایک مستند دستاویز ہے
• شوہر اس کو غلط ثابت نہیں کر سکا
• مہر ایک مخلوط (composite) حق ہے (یعنی تمام اجزاء الگ الگ واجب الادا ہیں)

🔸 اہم نکتہ:
• 10 تولہ سونا ایک مستقل حق ہے
• 5 لاکھ روپے صرف اس کی اندازاً قیمت ہے، متبادل نہیں
• اگر سونا نہ دیا جائے تو اس کی مارکیٹ ویلیو (ex*****on کے وقت) ادا ہوگی

🔸 نتیجہ:
• نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلے برقرار
• آئینی درخواست مسترد

21/04/2026

Stamp paper
Citation Name : 2003 MLD 954 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
----Ss.12 & 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.79---Suit for declaration and specific performance of agreement of sale ---Allottee of suit-land in whose favour proprietary rights were transferred, had executed registered sale-deed on the same date in favour of defendant and conveyed title to suit-land in his favour---Plaintiffs had claimed that transferee of suit-land had earlier in time executed an agreement of sale in respect of suit-land in their favour after receiving earnest money--Plaintiffs had also claimed that they were in possession of suit-land at the time of sale-deed allegedly executed by transferee in favour of defendant, thus defendant was put to notice of their interest in suitland---Plaintiffs had contented that defendant could not claim to be a bona fide purchase r of suit-land for valuable consideration without notice of the prior right of plaintiffs who had purchase d suit-land earlier to the defendant---Courts below concurrently decreed suit by plaintiffs--Validity---Alleged agreement of sale executed in favour of plaintiffs was witnessed by two marginal witnesses, but only one appeared in the Court and no explanation had been given for not producing the other marginal witness---Requirements of Art.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 having not been complied with, alleged agreement of sale could not be relied upon as evidence---Witness produced as marginal witness also did not qualify as a marginal witness as there was difference in statement of said witness and the plaintiffs with regard to amount of consideration---stamp paper for alleged agreement was purchase d two years prior to ex*****on of agreement and said stamp paper proved to have been purchase d for other person and names of parties were forged therein---Such circumstance had clearly undermined the authenticity of the alleged agreement of sale--Courts below were not legally justified in placing reliance on statement of original transferee of suit-land who resiled subsequently from his statement made in his written statement---Courts were not legally justified to decree the suit in view of such discrepancy--Courts having acted with material irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction, concurrent judgment of Courts was set aside by High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

Citation Name : 2002 YLR 3525 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-
----S.12---Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale---Evidence on record had proved that plaintiff (vendee) was trying to approach defendants (vendors) before target date for finalization of transaction of sale, but defendants did not meet plaintiff---Plaintiff had promptly filed suit just four days after target date , which had shown that plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of agreement---Defendants in their written statement had not pleaded that time was of the essence of agreement between parties--Simply the circumstance that plaintiff before target date did not give any notice to, defendants in writing or purchase d stamp paper s and got sale-deed drafted, would not cast any reflection on readiness and willingness of the plaintiff---Statements of witnesses amply proved that defendants were trying to avoid to meet plaintiff with obvious object that target date should pass and they have a lame excuse to avoid agreement---Trial Court, in circumstances, was not justified to dismiss suit holding that in fact plaintiff had not performed his part of agreement by making payment of balance consideration till target date ---Judgment and decree of Trial Court were set aside and suit was allowed in appeal by High Court.
Citation Name : 2000 SCMR 1440 SUPREME-
Martial Law Regulation 1972 No. 115 ---Para. 7---Exemption---Gift of land---Entry of mutation of gift was subsequent to the crucial date i.e. 20-12-1970; document of gift date d 4-10-1974 was- not registered one; entries in the Register of the stamp vendor showed that the stamp paper was not purchase d by the person concerned and the document date d 4-10-1974 could not be proved to be the genuine one constituting a complete gift under Muhammadan Law---Relevant mutations were preceded by a narration that the disposition in question was "Tamleeq Zabani" and that order date d 21-3-1972 passed by the Revenue Officer on all mutations explicitly stated that donor and donees were present and donor admitted to the making of an oral gift of the land in question in favour of donees, his: sons---Validity---Donor had neither stated in his declaration in Form LR 1 that he had made any gift through document date d 7-4-1970 nor the said document was genuine one in that the disputed entries in the Register of stamp vendor clearly went against the interest of alleged donor and donees---Absence of any reference to the, document date d 7-4-1970 in the Declaration Form of donor, thus, created genuine doubt resulting in refusal to accept the transaction evidenced by the same to be valid in circumstances.

Citation Name : 1996 MLD 869 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-
West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 ----S.42---Evidence relating to ex*****on of "Tamleeknama"---Appreciation of--Non-reporting of acquisition of right to Patwari within specified time---Effect--Plaintiff's reliance on ex*****on of "Tamleeknama" was mainly on the evidence of stamp -vendor and the scribe---stamp vendor did not personally know deceased donor and while selling non-judicial stamp paper he did not mention number of National Identity Card of donor---Scribe belonging to another district was close relative of plaintiffs, and his presence at the spot was per chance--Material produced by plaintiff did not indicate that ex*****on of "Tamleeknama" was effected during lifetime of alleged donor---Any person acquiring by gift, inheritance, purchase or otherwise any right in any estate as a land owner, would, within three months from date of such acquisition, report his acquisition of right to Patwari of estate who would record such report in his daily diary and furnish copy of such report to person making the report--- "Tamleeknama" in question, alleged to have been scribed on specified date , no report of such acquisition of right through "Tamleeknama" was reported to Patwari within specified three months or even beyond that from alleged date of ex*****on thereof---Provision of S.42, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, have been incorporated to minimise and eliminate chances of fraud, misrepresentation or ex*****on of transactions afterwards inasmuch as persons affected or likely to be affected by such transactions would become aware of same and would not be taken by surprise---Dispute in question, was hit by mandatory provision of S.42 of the Act, for word shall" has been mentioned therein which is mandatory direction---Non-registration of "Tamleeknama" was a fact to be used against plaintiffs and same would be deemed to be suspicious in nature ---Non registration of "Tamleeknama" would not make the same inadmissible, yet irresistible conclusion drawn from analysis of evidence and circumstances pertaining thereto would suggest that "Tamleeknama" was not executed by alleged donor during his lifetime and same would not be operative against mutation of inheritance.

Citation Name : 1992 CLC 2193 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Contract Act 1872 ----S. 10---Agreement to sell---Proof---stamp paper on which agreement to sell was scribed indicated that same was purchase d on 5-11-1971---Such stamp paper neither showed name of stamp vendor nor the place from where it was purchase d---Document in question further showed that same was executed on 12-11-1971---Version of plaintiff and his witnesses that stamp paper was purchase d on the date of ex*****on of document was completely demolished by the entry that the document in question, was scribed a week after it was purchase d---Maxim that a person can tell lies but a document cannot" was fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case---Agreement to sell was not proved in circumstances.
Citation Name : 1985 CLC 2945
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ---S. 149 and O. VII, r. 11--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), Ss.4, 21 a 30--Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9, 10 & 12--Pre-emption suit--Rejection of plaint--Deficiency in court-fee--Making good of-Opportunity to--Held, it was obligatory for trial Court to give plaintiff opportunity to correct value of suit and pay requisite court-fee--Omission to file schedule of net profit with plaint could not by itself attract penalty of rejection of plaint--stamp paper having been purchase d before target date --Presentation of same in Court, held, was more or less ministerial act.
Citation Name : 1984 MLD 872
Evidence Act 1872 ---Ss. 17 & 67--Proof of document--Allegation of fraud that stamp paper purchase d on 4th May, but sale date having been changed to 24th May, by prefixing figure 2 to 4--Neither stamp vendor examined nor any record of sale stamp s was summoned--No fraud, held, was committed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2007 PTD 2528
S.13(1)(aa)(e)---Addition---First Appellate Authority deleted the addition with the observation that assessment- was made before assessment year 2000-01; that Tax Amnesty Scheme declaration was also made during assessment year 2000-2001 and accepted in goods faith; that wealth statement as on 30-6-2000 was compulsory requirement of return filed under Self-Assessment Scheme was accepted in good faith by the Department; that Return for assessment year 2000-01 was accepted under S.59(1) in good faith; that Prize bonds were purchase d and encashed during 3-12-1988 to 7-3-1995; that it was beyond the control of assessee to declare these in wealth statements 30-6-1985, 30-6 2000 or 30-6-2001 and that genuineness of the gift made on 21-1-1990 had been doubted with the only plea that stamp paper was purchase d on 20-1-1990 and was executed on 1-1-1990 while Assessing Officer ignored the facts that it was a typing mistake due to which date was endorsed 1st January, 1990 instead of 21st January, 1990,---Affidavit of donor was also, ignored---Validity---Genuineness of a document could not be doubted on technicalities---No notice under S.148 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was issued to be donor nor any cogent reasons were brought on record by which said factor' could be doubted that at the time of making gift such amount was available with him or not---Amount declared as cash after sale of jewellery was doubted with the only plea that as per wealth statement as on 30-6-1985 assessee was owner of 10-Tolas of gold ornaments while on the other hand, he had shown sale of 25 Tolas---Assessing Officer in such respect had ignored the affidavit of mother of the assessee that she had gifted 15-Tolas to his son and the same was sold---No Notice under S.148 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was issued to golds with which according to laws was necessary---While making addition under S.13(1)(d), element of intangible was ignored by the Assessing Officer---Appellate Tribunal, after considering such observation of the First Appellate Authority, declined interference and appeal of the Department was dismissed.

Citation Name : 2006 YLR 978 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
--S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Suit was decreed but decree was set aside in first appeal---Execution of agreement---Proof---In order to prove valid ex*****on of agreement statement of attorney/defendant wherein he had conceded the claim of plaintiff had no evidentiary value as he was a party in litigation and against him other defendants had alleged that he along with plaintiff was instrumental in preparing the . ante-date d sale agreement---One of marginal witnesses had died while other was unable to give exact date of ex*****on of agreement and admitted that he knew plaintiff for last many years but was a chance witness of the disputed agreement---Scribe of document was not a registered Waseeqa Navees and register produced by him belonged to some other person wherein various pages and serial numbers were missing---Record of stamp vendor about purchase of stamp paper on which the disputed agreement was executed was not produced by plaintiffs without any justification---Receipt of the sale price critically shadowed the validity/ genuineness of sale agreement and knocked the bottom out of the case of plaintiffs because when the receipt was alleged to have been executed, the stamp s which the receipt contained, were not in vogue---Plaintiffs had failed to prove valid ex*****on of agreement on particular date .

Citation Name : 2006 MLD 886 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
---S.12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.179---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Suit was decreed but decree was set aside in appeal---Execution of agreement---Proof---Plaintiff asserted that bargain was struck with defendants in presence of two marginal witnesses while said witnesses categorically denied said fact by saying that neither they were present at the time of bargain nor were the terms of transaction settled in their presence---Statements of witnesses regarding the date of purchase of stamp paper and date of which agreement was executed had material discrepancy---Plaintiff's failure to produce the Bank record or any functionary of the Bank to prove his assertion that a draft for huge amount was delivered to defendants when the agreement was executed, constituted a material omission on his part and justified the inference that assertion was false---Finding of appellate Court were thus not open to exception under S.100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

Citation Name : 2005 PLD 654 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
---Art. 36----Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Plaintiff had contended that since defendant had failed to fulfil his obligation under the agreement and had sold the property in favour of another person therefore, he had brought the suit for specific performance impleading the alleged purchase r as a defendant and also impugning the sale in his favour---Defendant, in his written statement, conceded the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and also pleaded that no sale was made in .favour of the other person through mutation, which according to him, was the result of fraud and misrepresentation---Defendant, however, averred in his written statement that he was prepared to finalize the deal in favour of the plaintiff after the cancellation of alleged mutation, for which he asserted to take appropriate legal action, but did not do so---purchase r, the other defendant, in his written statement, denied the ex*****on of the agreement to sell with the plaintiff by the first defendant and claimed that the agreement was backdate d and also collusive between the plaintiff and the first defendant---Both the lower Courts allowed the suit of the plaintiff and returned findings against the other defendant upon the issue of bona fide purchase ---Validity---Both the Courts below, in fact, had basically relied upon the admission of the first defendant about the ex*****on of the agreement to sell but an admission of a co-defendant was not binding upon the other which rule shall more stringently be applicable to the present case, because the other defendant had already purchase d the suit property from the first defendant and a mutation in that behalf had been attested in his favour---Other defendant throughout possessed the legal title to the suit property and had every right to defend anc: protect his rights as a lawful owner thereof---First defendant who had ostensibly transferred his interest and rights in the suit property in favour of the other defendant and had never challenged the alienation independently before any forum, except setting up the defence in the present case, his admission about the ex*****on of the salt, agreement could not be received as an admission binding the other defendant, being a co-defendant of the case---Despite the admission of the first defendant, in circumstances, when the other defendant had denied the ex*****on and 4 attestation of sale-deed and claimed same to he the result of fraud and collusion between the first defendant and the plaintiff, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have proved the valid ex*****on and attestation of the .agreement to sell---Plaintiff should have produced further corroborative evidence, such as by summoning the relevant record/register of stamp vendor, along with the vendor to establish that the stamp paper for the purpose of the agreement was purchase d on or before the crucial date , so as to eliminate the possibility and the doubt that the document was antedate d---Both the Courts had glaringly ignored important aspects, which was tantamount to misreading and non-reading of the record and the ignorance and misapplication of law, therefore, such judgments and decrees could not be sustained---Principles.

Citation Name : 2005 YLR 2655 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

--S. 42---Suit for declaration---Mutation of oral sale---Written statement---Oral sale---Proof---Duty of plaintiff to prove such sale---Affidavit of one of the sellers was written on a stamp paper purchase d for agreement to sell---Deponent was not identified and had not appeared as a witness---No "Rapat Roznamcha" was available on record---Alleged attorney had not appeared before the Revenue Officer at the time of attestation of mutation and mutation of oral sale was not sanctioned---Death certificate showed that seller had died two years before the alleged sale pleaded to be made by general attorney--date , time, month, and venue of the transaction of sale was neither given in pleadings nor in proof---Oral evidence was discrepant contradictory to the pleading and not believable--Sale was not proved---Appellate Court had decreed the suit by misreading and non-reading of evidence---Judgment and decree of the Appellate Court were set aside in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2005 YLR 1434 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
---Ss. 516-A & 561-A---Superdari of vehicle---Entitlement---Quashing of order---Petitioner had filed petition against order of Trial Court whereby Superdari of vehicle in dispute was handed over to the respondent---Petitioner had claimed that original owner of vehicle had transferred the same in the name of other person/transferee and said transferee had transferred it in the name of petitioner in lieu of amount settled between them---Respondent to whom Superdari of vehicle was handed over, had claimed that he had purchase d vehicle in question from the original owner---Transfer deed on basis of which petitioner had claimed to have purchase d vehicle in dispute, neither bore name of stamp vendor nor it contained signature/thumb impression of original owner on its reverse side and it did not show that for what purpose the paper was purchase d---Said transfer deed was even without identity card number of the original owner---Transfer deed produced by petitioner appeared to be bogus and false---On the other hand open transfer deed produced by respondent, bore date of issuance, was showing its purchase r's name and name of person in whose favour it was purchase d---Vehicle was purchase d by original owner in favour of respondent---Said Transfer Deed appeared to be genuine document---Vehicle in dispute had fully been established to have been transferred in the name of petitioner on basis of forged documents and in circumstances had rightly been handed over to the respondent---No misreading or non-reading or even jurisdictional defect was pointed out in the impugned order---Petition filed by petitioner under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. invoking inherent powers of High Court calling in question said order of Superdari of vehicle passed in favour of respondent by Trial Court, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2005 CLD 1825 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
---Ss. 5, 6 & 9 --- Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.84---Suit for recovery against the borrower and guarantor---Guarantor denied to have stood guarantor of the borrower or to have executed and signed the guarantee paper s and alleged that guarantee documents were result of forgery and fraud on the part of bank---Alleged guarantor stated to have no connection with the borrower personally or with her business and further raised objection that in such cases the bank was expected to assess and verify the credibility and financial worth oj' the alleged guarantor before accepting him as such but the bank did not bother to do the same---Alleged guarantor took a specific plea that it was unbelievable that lie would execute alleged guarantee on 13-8-1985 after expiry of the maturity date viz. 26-12-1984 by which date amount due from the borrower on account of L.Cs. opened on her request was to be repaid---Guarantor also pleaded that it looked incredible that he would execute one and the same guarantee in respect of two finances, the subject-matter of two suits and that stamp paper s used for guarantee appeared to have been purchase d on 8-3-1986 whereas the date of alleged guarantee on the said stamp paper s was shown to be 13-8-1985 which itself was sufficient to show the falsehood of the claim of the bank---Validity---Held, that plaintiff had failed to prove the case justifying a decree against the alleged guarantor particularly in view of specific plea taken by him that he neither executed the guarantee documents nor stood as guarantor for repayment of the loan obtained by the borrower, having no means to stand as guarantor, it was under the circumstances necessary for the bank to have examined his wroth before accepting him as a guarantor---Nothing was available on record to rebut the plea of the guarantor that he was an employee in a private firm on a monthly salary of Rs.4,500 and had no other moveable or immovable property---Mere fact that the borrower was paternal-aunt of the alleged guarantor was not sufficient to establish that he stood as a guarantor for the borrower---Banking Tribunal should have taken the burden upon itself of comparing the admitted signatures of the alleged guarantor on his identity card, passport and affidavit filed in Court with the disputed signatures on the form of guarantee---Expert opinion had its own importance, nevertheless under Art.84, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, Court was not prohibited or debarred from comparing the admitted and disputed signatures under the particular circumstances of a case---Appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case had led the Banking Tribunal to rightly hold that Bank had not been straightforward in explaining the circumstances in which the alleged guarantor had allegedly executed guarantee on behalf of the borrower---Claim for liquidate d damages, in absence of any evidence and proof as required under the law, was also rightly declined by the Banking Tribunal---No illegality or material irregularity having been found by the High Court in the findings recorded by the Banking Tribunal, appeal was dismissed.

Citation Name : 2004 SCMR 378 SUPREME-COURT
--S.12---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Dismissal of suit by Courts below--Validity--Statements of plaintiff's witnesses were contradictory to each other in material particulars---Scribe had categorically stated that agreement to sell was not executed by defendant---Record Keeper from office of Excise arid Taxation had stated that according to record for relevant year, no stamp paper was purchase d by defendant on relevant date or thereafter---Subsequent purchase rs from defendant had proved lack of notice or knowledge of alleged agreement to sell---Courts below had disbelieved factum of ex*****on of agreement to sell---Concurrent findings of fact did not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of evidence---Supreme Court dismissed petition in. circumstances.

Citation Name : 2003 YLR 3005 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
----Ss. 12 & 24---stamp Act (II of 1899), S.29---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.55--Specific performance of agreement to sell--Failure to purchase stamp paper s---Defendant entered into agreement to sell his land with plaintiff---Agreement as well as receipt of earnest money were not denied by the defendant---Defendant contended that as the plaintiff did not purchase the stamp paper s before the specified date , therefore, the plaintiff was nor willing to perform his part of contract---Trial Court decreed the suit and same was confirmed in appeal---Plea raised by the defendant was that as the plaintiff had not purchase d the stamp paper s before the target date he was not ready and willing to purchase the land---Validity---Was not clear from the agreement to sell as to who was to bear the expenses for the purchase of stamp paper s but relying upon S.29 of stamp Act, 1899, the view taken was that it wits the duty of the vendee ---If the vendee of agreement had not purchase d the stamp paper , it could not be said that he was incapable of performing his part of agreement and had violated the terms and conditions of the contract within the purview of S. 24(b) of Specific Relief Act, 1871---Inference of Appellate Court solely on the basis of such reason without looking into other evidence on record could not be sustained ---Vendee could not be non-suited on the basis of being not ready and willing when other ingredients showing that he was capable of performing his part of contract, having requisite money and had visited the office of Sub-Registrar for the purpose--Plaintiff had promptly fled the suit which proved that he was ready and willing to perform his part of agreement and sought finalization of the transaction---Courts had concurrently found that the time was not essence of the contract as was neither spelt out from the agreement nor form the conduct of the parties---No evidence was led by the parties to prove that the time was essence of the contract---High Court declined to interfere with the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2003 CLC 496
Specific Relief Act 1877 ---S. 12---Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 55 & 62---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 113---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell--Novation of contract---Defendant received earnest money on 4-4-1981, when agreement to sell was executed, whereas balance consideration was payable till 12-10-1981---Defendant attempted to take forcible possession of suit house in September, 1981, over which plaintiff's wife initiated criminal proceedings---Defendant was sentenced in such proceedings and he filed criminal appeal in the High Court---Defendant was acquitted by the High Court in pursuance of compromise/agreement made between parties on 23-4-1989 to the effect that defendant would execute- sale-deed in favour of plaintiff till 28-4-1989---Plaintiff purchase d stamp paper before 28-4-1989 for ex*****on of sale-deed, but defendant commenced performing his "Ehtikaf" on 28-4-1989---Defendant thereafter refused to execute sale-deed, over which plaintiff filed contempt application. against him and then the present suit---Trial Court decreed the suit ---Validity--Defendant had neither asserted nor established to have contacted plaintiff from 23-4-1989 till Maghrab of 28-4-1989---Time could not be construed to be essence of agreement/compromise date d 23-4-1989,--Defendant himself was in Ehtikaf for ten days and then there were Eid Holidays--Fact of filing contempt application against defendant coupled with purchase of stamp paper would show that plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of agreement---If defendant had intention to perform agreement by receiving balance consideration, then nothing much had developed in between 28-4-1989 and filing of contempt proceedings, when time was not the essence .of contract---Defendant could easily finalize the transaction by accepting balance payment at the time of initiation of contempt proceedings, but he had tried to wriggle out of the contract by contesting the matter---Agreement date d 23-4-1989 was a compromise between the parties entered in the backdrop of earlier agreement for resolving their outstanding dispute---Agreement date d 23-4-1989 was a total substitution of earlier agreement with new terms and conditions and parties were not obliged to perform stipulations of agreement date d 4-4-1981---Such fact had constituted a valid novation--Defendant could not prove failure of plaintiff to perform second agreement in letter and spirit---Suit filed within three years from 23-4-1989 was not time-barred---No illegality or factual infirmity was found in impugned judgment and decree---High Court dismissed appeal in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2003 MLD 954 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT
----Ss.12 & 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.79---Suit for declaration and specific performance of agreement of sale ---Allottee of suit-land in whose favour proprietary rights were transferred, had executed registered sale-deed on the same date in favour of defendant and conveyed title to suit-land in his favour---Plaintiffs had claimed that transferee of suit-land had earlier in time executed an agreement of sale in respect of suit-land in their favour after receiving earnest money--Plaintiffs had also claimed that they were in possession of suit-land at the time of sale-deed allegedly executed by transferee in favour of defendant, thus defendant was put to notice of their interest in suitland---Plaintiffs had contented that defendant could not claim to be a bona fide purchase r of suit-land for valuable consideration without notice of the prior right of plaintiffs who had purchase d suit-land earlier to the defendant---Courts below concurrently decreed suit by plaintiffs--Validity---Alleged agreement of sale executed in favour of plaintiffs was witnessed by two marginal witnesses, but only one appeared in the Court and no explanation had been given for not producing the other marginal witness---Requirements of Art.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 having not been complied with, alleged agreement of sale could not be relied upon as evidence---Witness produced as marginal witness also did not qualify as a marginal witness as there was difference in statement of said witness and the plaintiffs with regard to amount of consideration---stamp paper for alleged agreement was purchase d two years prior to ex*****on of agreement and said stamp paper proved to have been purchase d for other person and names of parties were forged therein---Such circumstance had clearly undermined the authenticity of the alleged agreement of sale--Courts below were not legally justified in placing reliance on statement of original transferee of suit-land who resiled subsequently from his statement made in his written statement---Courts were not legally justified to decree the suit in view of such discrepancy--Courts having acted with material irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction, concurrent judgment of Courts was set aside by High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.


Citation Name : 2002 YLR 3525 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT
----S.12---Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale---Evidence on record had proved that plaintiff (vendee) was trying to approach defendants (vendors) before target date for finalization of transaction of sale, but defendants did not meet plaintiff---Plaintiff had promptly filed suit just four days after target date , which had shown that plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of agreement---Defendants in their written statement had not pleaded that time was of the essence of agreement between parties--Simply the circumstance that plaintiff before target date did not give any notice to, defendants in writing or purchase d stamp paper s and got sale-deed drafted, would not cast any reflection on readiness and willingness of the plaintiff---Statements of witnesses amply proved that defendants were trying to avoid to meet plaintiff with obvious object that target date should pass and they have a lame excuse to avoid agreement---Trial Court, in circumstances, was not justified to dismiss suit holding that in fact plaintiff had not performed his part of agreement by making payment of balance consideration till target date ---Judgment and decree of Trial Court were set aside and suit was allowed in appeal by High Court.


Citation Name : 2000 SCMR 1440 SUPREME-COURT
Martial Law Regulation 1972 No. 115 ---Para. 7---Exemption---Gift of land---Entry of mutation of gift was subsequent to the crucial date i.e. 20-12-1970; document of gift date d 4-10-1974 was- not registered one; entries in the Register of the stamp vendor showed that the stamp paper was not purchase d by the person concerned and the document date d 4-10-1974 could not be proved to be the genuine one constituting a complete gift under Muhammadan Law---Relevant mutations were preceded by a narration that the disposition in question was "Tamleeq Zabani" and that order date d 21-3-1972 passed by the Revenue Officer on all mutations explicitly stated that donor and donees were present and donor admitted to the making of an oral gift of the land in question in favour of donees, his: sons---Validity---Donor had neither stated in his declaration in Form LR 1 that he had made any gift through document date d 7-4-1970 nor the said document was genuine one in that the disputed entries in the Register of stamp vendor clearly went against the interest of alleged donor and donees---Absence of any reference to the, document date d 7-4-1970 in the Declaration Form of donor, thus, created genuine doubt resulting in refusal to accept the transaction evidenced by the same to be valid in circumstances.

Citation Name : 1996 MLD 869 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 ----S.42---Evidence relating to ex*****on of "Tamleeknama"---Appreciation of--Non-reporting of acquisition of right to Patwari within specified time---Effect--Plaintiff's reliance on ex*****on of "Tamleeknama" was mainly on the evidence of stamp -vendor and the scribe---stamp vendor did not personally know deceased donor and while selling non-judicial stamp paper he did not mention number of National Identity Card of donor---Scribe belonging to another district was close relative of plaintiffs, and his presence at the spot was per chance--Material produced by plaintiff did not indicate that ex*****on of "Tamleeknama" was effected during lifetime of alleged donor---Any person acquiring by gift, inheritance, purchase or otherwise any right in any estate as a land owner, would, within three months from date of such acquisition, report his acquisition of right to Patwari of estate who would record such report in his daily diary and furnish copy of such report to person making the report--- "Tamleeknama" in question, alleged to have been scribed on specified date , no report of such acquisition of right through "Tamleeknama" was reported to Patwari within specified three months or even beyond that from alleged date of ex*****on thereof---Provision of S.42, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, have been incorporated to minimise and eliminate chances of fraud, misrepresentation or ex*****on of transactions afterwards inasmuch as persons affected or likely to be affected by such transactions would become aware of same and would not be taken by surprise---Dispute in question, was hit by mandatory provision of S.42 of the Act, for word shall" has been mentioned therein which is mandatory direction---Non-registration of "Tamleeknama" was a fact to be used against plaintiffs and same would be deemed to be suspicious in nature ---Non registration of "Tamleeknama" would not make the same inadmissible, yet irresistible conclusion drawn from analysis of evidence and circumstances pertaining thereto would suggest that "Tamleeknama" was not executed by alleged donor during his lifetime and same would not be operative against mutation of inheritance.


Citation Name : 1992 CLC 2193 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Contract Act 1872 ----S. 10---Agreement to sell---Proof---stamp paper on which agreement to sell was scribed indicated that same was purchase d on 5-11-1971---Such stamp paper neither showed name of stamp vendor nor the place from where it was purchase d---Document in question further showed that same was executed on 12-11-1971---Version of plaintiff and his witnesses that stamp paper was purchase d on the date of ex*****on of document was completely demolished by the entry that the document in question, was scribed a week after it was purchase d---Maxim that a person can tell lies but a document cannot" was fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case---Agreement to sell was not proved in circumstances.


Citation Name : 1985 CLC 2945 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ---S. 149 and O. VII, r. 11--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), Ss.4, 21 a 30--Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9, 10 & 12--Pre-emption suit--Rejection of plaint--Deficiency in court-fee--Making good of-Opportunity to--Held, it was obligatory for trial Court to give plaintiff opportunity to correct value of suit and pay requisite court-fee--Omission to file schedule of net profit with plaint could not by itself attract penalty of rejection of plaint--stamp paper having been purchase d before target date --Presentation of same in Court, held, was more or less ministerial act.


Citation Name : 1984 MLD 872 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Evidence Act 1872 ---Ss. 17 & 67--Proof of document--Allegation of fraud that stamp paper purchase d on 4th May, but sale date having been changed to 24th May, by prefixing figure 2 to 4--Neither stamp vendor examined nor any record of sale stamp s was summoned--No fraud, held, was committed in circumstance