livelawpk.com - A Special Attorney cannot replace the Principal’s ---

A Special Attorney cannot replace the Principal’s Testimony in Matters where the Principal has Direct Knowledge --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

3 months, 1 week
78

A Special Attorney cannot replace the Principal’s Testimony in Matters where the Principal has Direct Knowledge --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

Islamabad 23-12-2024: In a significant decision, the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, has dismissed a suit based on an alleged oral sale agreement in [Civil Revision No. 241-D/2022], filed by Nasir Ali against Mst. Raheela Mahdi. The judgment, delivered by Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain, overturned the concurrent findings of the Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge, both of whom had decreed in favor of the respondent.

The Lahore High Court held that the suit lacked sufficient evidentiary support, suffered from procedural irregularities, and failed to meet the legal requirements for enforcing an oral agreement.

The Court reiterated that oral agreements are enforceable under the Contract Act, 1872, provided the terms, such as date, time, place, and witness details, are clearly specified. The judgment emphasized that oral agreements are prone to dishonest improvements and require strict scrutiny of evidence.

The respondent, who was the alleged beneficiary of the oral agreement, did not appear as a witness. Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain drew adverse inferences, stating that her failure to testify cast serious doubts on the credibility of her claims.

The respondent’s husband, acting as her special attorney, testified on her behalf. The Court clarified that a special attorney cannot replace the principal’s testimony in matters where the principal has direct knowledge.

Witnesses presented by the respondent included her son and a domestic servant. The Court found them to be biased and lacking the independence necessary to validate an oral agreement.

Procedural flaws in the local commission’s report further weakened the respondent’s case. The commission failed to properly notify the petitioner and submitted conflicting findings regarding the disputed property.

The oral agreement was allegedly concluded in 2007, but the suit was filed in 2019. Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain found the delay unjustifiable, especially given the history of litigation between the parties.

This ruling underscores the necessity for parties relying on oral agreements to adhere strictly to legal and evidentiary standards. It also highlights the importance of procedural fairness, the credibility of witnesses, and the role of special attorneys in civil litigation.