livelawpk.com - A Suit for Specific Performance based on an Improperly ---

A Suit for Specific Performance based on an Improperly Attested Agreement to sell was Non-Maintainable --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

3 days, 7 hours
47

A Suit for Specific Performance based on an Improperly Attested Agreement to sell was Non-Maintainable --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

Islamabad 28-03-2025: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has set aside the orders of the Civil Judge 1st Class and the Additional District Judge, Lahore, in [Writ Petition No. 6284 of 2021], ruling that a suit for specific performance based on an improperly attested agreement to sell was non-maintainable.

The case, Malik Atta Muhammad Vs. Malik Sarfraz Abbas, etc., centered around a disputed agreement to sell dated December 29, 1998, through which the respondents claimed to have purchased one-third share of land measuring 6-kanals 02-marlas in District Lahore. The petitioner denied executing the agreement, contending that the suit was barred by limitation and lacked the legal formalities required under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

The petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), arguing that the agreement was inadmissible as it was neither attested by two witnesses as required by Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, nor met the evidentiary standard prescribed under Article 79. The trial Court dismissed this application, stating that the cause of action was disclosed in the plaint, leading to an unsuccessful revision petition before the Additional District Judge.

However, the Lahore High Court ruled that, in the absence of proper attestation, the agreement could not be admitted as evidence, rendering the suit futile. The Court also emphasized the recent amendment to Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC (effective November 1, 2020), which expanded the Court’s power to reject plaints based on the record available, rather than solely on the plaint’s content.

Mr. Justice Anwaarul Haq Pannun, presiding over the case, allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders of the lower Courts, declaring them illegal and beyond jurisdiction. The Court held that proceeding with the suit would be an exercise in futility and an abuse of judicial time, stressing the importance of curbing frivolous litigation.