The Admitted Facts need not be proved and that Courts will not disturb Concurrent Findings of fact unless there is clear Evidence of Legal or Factual Error --- Lahore High Court
Islamabad 14-09-2024: The Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, on September 3, 2024, dismissed a civil revision petition filed by Muhammad Usman Farooq Malik, thereby upholding the concurrent findings of the lower Courts in favor of the plaintiffs, Khaliq Zia and Bushra Naheed, in a suit for specific performance of a contract. The judgment, delivered by Mr. Justice Shakil Ahmad, reaffirmed the decisions of both the trial Court and the appellate Court.
The plaintiffs, Khaliq Zia and his wife, Bushra Naheed, filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement dated February 11, 2006, concerning a 1-Kanal plot in the “Canal Garden Housing Scheme Sector-I” in Bahawalpur. They contended that they had made timely payments of the installments, but the defendants, Muhammad Usman Farooq Malik (petitioner) and Malik Ehsan ul Haq (respondent No. 3), failed to transfer the property as agreed.
The trial Court, on October 11, 2023, decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, directing the defendants to transfer the property to the plaintiffs. Malik’s subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on April 26, 2024.
The petitioner, Malik, challenged the lower Courts’ judgments under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), primarily contending that the plaintiffs had not paid him and that the signatures on several documents were forged. He further argued that the suit was time-barred and that the contract had been novated, releasing him from liability.
Mr. Justice Shakil Ahmad, after hearing the petitioner’s counsel, found no merit in the revision petition.
The Court ruled that:
- Malik had failed to specifically deny key facts in his pleadings, which led to the application of Order VIII Rule 5 of CPC. As a result, the facts were deemed admitted.
- The petitioner’s claims of forgery were unsupported, as he did not seek a comparison of his signatures. The Court emphasized that a mere denial was insufficient without corroborative steps.
- The plaintiffs’ testimony remained unchallenged in cross-examination, leading the Court to presume its truth.
On the issue of limitation, the Court rejected the petitioner’s contention, holding that the cause of action arose when Malik and respondent No. 3 refused to transfer the plot, making the suit timely.
The Court also dismissed the petitioner’s argument regarding the novation of the contract under Section 62 of the Contract Act, 1872. The Court ruled that there was no complete substitution of the original contract, but only a slight modification in payment terms, which did not constitute novation. The Court cited the case Muhammad Iftikhar Abbasi Vs. Mst. Naheed Begum and others (2022 SCMR 1074) to support its ruling.
Mr. Justice Shakil Ahmad reiterated the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC. He noted that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower Courts were based on proper appreciation of the evidence, and no misreading or non-reading of the evidence was established. As such, the Lahore High Court declined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower Courts.
The Court dismissed the revision petition in limine, stating that the lower Courts had rightly decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. The petitioner failed to present any substantial ground to challenge the concurrent findings of fact, and thus, the case did not warrant further interference by the Lahore High Court.
The ruling reinforces the principle that admitted facts need not be proved and that Courts will not disturb concurrent findings of fact unless there is clear evidence of legal or factual error.
Powered by Froala Editor
