Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984--- ----Arts. 17 & 79---Agreement to sell---Proof through attesting witnesses---Mandatory requirement---Suit for specific performance was founded upon alleged agreement to sell dated 22.09.2000 relating to immovable property---Defendants specifically denied execution of said agreement---Held, that where a document is required by law to be attested, its execution must be proved through attesting witnesses in accordance with Arts.17 and 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, unless absence of such witnesses is satisfactorily explained---Production of attesting witnesses is mandatory and failure to comply renders document legally unproved. Cited Cases: • Rafaqat Ali and others v. Mst. Jamshed Bibi and others 2007 SCMR 1076 • Ainuddin and others v. Abdullah and another 2019 SCMR 880 (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984--- ----Arts. 17 & 79---Agreement to sell---Non-production of marginal witnesses---Effect---Plaintiff relied upon agreement to sell but failed to produce marginal witnesses of the document---No explanation was furnished for their non-production despite serious denial of execution by defendants---Held, that failure to produce most natural witnesses to the transaction struck at the root of plaintiff’s case---Agreement to sell could not be treated as proved in accordance with law. Cited Case: • Mst. Hajyani Bar Bibi through L.R. v. Mrs. Rehana Afzal Ali Khan and others PLD 2014 SC 794 (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984--- ----Art. 17(2)(a)---Power of attorney and agreement concerning immovable property---Instrument creating financial obligations---Attestation---Requirement---Agreement to sell and powers of attorney relied upon by plaintiff related to immovable property and created financial obligations---Held, that such documents fall within ambit of Art.17(2)(a) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and must be attested and proved in accordance with Arts.17 and 79 thereof---A document not proved through prescribed legal mode cannot form basis of decree for specific performance. Cited Cases: • Maqsood Ahmad and others v. Salman Ali PLD 2003 SC 31 • Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and others PLD 2011 SC 241 (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984--- ----Art. 129(g)---Withholding of best evidence---Adverse presumption---Agreement to sell denied by defendants---Plaintiff failed to produce marginal witnesses and gave no explanation for such omission---Held, that adverse presumption under Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 would arise against plaintiff that had marginal witnesses been produced, they would not have supported his stance---Plaintiff failed to discharge burden of proof. (e) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Specific performance---Equitable and discretionary relief---Proof of contract---Requirement---Relief of specific performance is not granted as a matter of right merely because it is lawful to do so---Court must examine facts, conduct of parties, delay, surrounding circumstances and whether contract has been proved in accordance with law---Held, that where alleged agreement to sell itself remained legally unproved, plaintiff was not entitled to discretionary relief of specific performance. Cited Case: • Liaqat Ali Khan and others v. Falak Sher and others PLD 2014 SC 506 (f) Specific performance--- ----Agreement to sell not proved---Third-party rights---Effect---Plaintiff alleged prior agreement to sell and full payment of consideration, whereas defendants asserted lawful subsequent transfer through chain of title and bona fide purchase without notice---Record reflected that third-party rights had already been created through transfer duly recognized by Capital Development Authority---Held, that in presence of legally unproved agreement and intervening third-party rights, equitable relief of specific performance could not be granted. (g) Civil suit--- ----Specific performance, possession and permanent injunction---Foundation of claim legally unproved---Effect---Entire claim of plaintiff rested upon agreement to sell dated 22.09.2000---Marginal witnesses were not produced, execution was denied, and mandatory evidentiary requirements were not satisfied---Held, that Courts below failed to properly appreciate mandatory requirements of Arts.17 and 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and erroneously decreed suit despite fundamental defects in plaintiff’s evidence. (h) Civil proceedings--- ----Concurrent findings below---Interference by Supreme Court---Mandatory evidentiary requirements ignored---Trial Court decreed suit, Appellate Court dismissed appeal, and High Court dismissed civil revision---Supreme Court held that plaintiff failed to prove alleged agreement to sell in accordance with mandatory provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---Where Courts below proceed on a document not legally proved, interference by Supreme Court is warranted. Disposition: Petitions were converted into appeal and allowed. Judgments of Trial Court, Appellate Court and Islamabad High Court were set aside. Suit instituted by plaintiff/respondent No.1 for specific performance, possession and permanent injunction stood dismissed. Parties were left to bear their own costs.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- ----Specific performance of agreement to sell---Discretionary and equitable relief---Continuous readiness and willingness---Petitions arose out of three interconnected civil proceedings concerning same immovable property and two competing agreements to sell dated 16.04.2014 and 03.06.2016---Supreme Court held that relief of specific performance, though statutorily recognized, was not granted as a matter of right but rested in equity and judicial discretion---Person seeking such relief was required to plead and prove that he had been continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract---Readiness and willingness was not a mere formal requirement but foundational to equitable relief, as the Court could not compel performance of reciprocal obligations unless satisfied that the claimant himself had adhered to the discipline of the contract---Held, plaintiff seeking specific performance must establish continuous readiness and willingness through pleadings, conduct and reliable evidence, failing which the foundation for equitable relief becomes unsustainable. Cited Cases: • Messrs DW Pakistan (Private) Limited, Lahore v. Begum Anisa Fazl-I-Mahmood and others 2023 SCMR 555 • Ijaz Ul Haq v. Mrs. Maroof Begum Ahmed and others PLD 2023 SC 653 • Muhammad Yaqub v. Muhammad Nasrullah Khan and others PLD 1986 SC 497 • Narinjan v. Muhammad Yunus AIR 1932 Lah 265 (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----First Sched., Appendix “A”, Form 47---Suit for specific performance---Pleading readiness and willingness---Requirement not an empty technicality---Supreme Court held that plaint in a suit for specific performance must conform to Form 47 of Appendix “A” to the First Schedule of C.P.C. and must contain a clear assertion that plaintiff “has been and still is ready and willing specifically to perform the agreement” on his part---Plaintiff must plead readiness and willingness in clear and specific terms and then prove the same by convincing evidence---Readiness must relate to contract as actually executed, including timelines and conditions, and must continue from inception of obligation until institution of suit---In the present case, plaint did not contain the categorical averment mandated by Form 47 and absence of clear continuous assertion weakened the very foundation of the claim for specific performance. Cited Cases: • Messrs DW Pakistan (Private) Limited, Lahore v. Begum Anisa Fazl-I-Mahmood and others 2023 SCMR 555 • Ijaz Ul Haq v. Mrs. Maroof Begum Ahmed and others PLD 2023 SC 653 • Muhammad Yaqub v. Muhammad Nasrullah Khan and others PLD 1986 SC 497 (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- ----Specific performance of agreement to sell---Balance sale consideration---Tender, deposit or proof of financial capacity---Buyer’s primary obligation---Supreme Court held that in a contract for sale of immovable property the vendee’s core reciprocal obligation is payment of balance sale consideration---Readiness and willingness cannot be established in abstraction or by mere assertion; it must be reflected through objective acts showing financial capacity and preparedness to perform---Preparation of pay order, cashier cheque, segregation of funds, bank guarantee, bank statement, or prompt deposit in Court are evidentiary indicators of bona fide readiness---Though deposit of sale consideration at the time of filing suit is not an inflexible statutory precondition, failure to tender or otherwise demonstrate availability of funds materially affects the plaintiff’s claim---Where no credible material shows that buyer secured or tendered consideration in terms of agreement, Court may draw adverse inference regarding bona fides. Cited Cases: • Nazar Hussain and another v. Syed Iqbal Ahmad Qadri 2022 SCMR 1216 • Inayatullah Khan and others v. Shabir Ahmad Khan 2021 SCMR 686 • Muhammad Yousaf v. Allah Ditta and others 2021 SCMR 1241 • Mst. Noor Jehan and another v. Saleem Shahadat 2022 SCMR 918 • Muhammad Jamil and others v. Muhammad Arif 2021 SCMR 1108 • Hamood Mehmood v. Mst. Shabana Ishaque and others 2017 SCMR 2022 • Muhammad Shafiq Ullah and others v. Allah Bakhsh through LRs 2021 SCMR 763 (d) Contract Act (IX of 1872)---- ----S. 51---Reciprocal promises---Agreement to sell immovable property---Vendor’s obligation to execute sale deed dependent upon vendee’s readiness to pay balance sale consideration---Supreme Court held that obligations of vendor and vendee in sale of immovable property are ordinarily reciprocal and interdependent---Vendor cannot be compelled to execute and register sale deed unless vendee first establishes through pleadings and proof that he was ready and willing to perform his corresponding obligation to pay balance sale consideration---Court while exercising jurisdiction in suit for specific performance must examine mutuality of obligations and determine whether claimant has satisfied pre-requisite of demonstrating his own readiness to perform. Cited Case: • Mst. Samina Riffat and others v. Rohail Asghar and others 2021 SCMR 7 (e) Contract Act (IX of 1872) / Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- ----Time as essence of contract---Sale of immovable property---Express contractual stipulation---Effect---Although time is not ordinarily treated as essence in transactions of immovable property, parties are competent to expressly stipulate otherwise---Where agreement prescribes definite time for payment and provides consequence for default, Court must give effect to contractual terms settled between parties---Equitable jurisdiction of Court does not extend to rewriting bargain or diluting express stipulations relating to timelines and forfeiture---In present case, agreement dated 03.06.2016 specifically required balance sale consideration to be paid on or before 15.01.2017; obligation was neither contingent nor deferred but formed core reciprocal promise of vendees---No tender of balance amount was made within stipulated time, no pay order, bank guarantee, bank statement or segregated funds were shown, and no immediate deposit was made in Court upon institution of suit---Deposit made only after Court direction and substantially beyond contractual deadline could not retrospectively cure absence of readiness and willingness at material time. Cited Cases: • Fazal Ur Rehman v. Ahmed Saeed Mughal and others 2004 SCMR 436 • Muhammad Jamil v. Muhammad Arif 2021 SCMR 1108 (f) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- ----Specific performance---Belated deposit of balance consideration---Effect---Courts below treated subsequent deposit of balance sale consideration, made pursuant to Court direction after expiry of stipulated period, as sufficient to cure earlier default---Supreme Court held that such approach was contrary to settled principles---Jurisprudence did not equate belated compliance with continuous readiness and willingness---Court was required to examine whether plaintiff had secured, tendered or demonstrated availability of consideration on the due date fixed by contract and whether such readiness continued thereafter without interruption---Failure to conduct such inquiry amounted to overlooking a material legal requirement governing grant of specific performance---Record did not satisfactorily establish that respondents fulfilled essential precondition of continuous readiness and willingness; therefore decree for specific performance could not be sustained. (g) Administration of justice---- ----Concurrent findings of fact---Interference by Supreme Court---Misreading/non-reading of evidence and violation of settled principles---Although concurrent findings are not ordinarily disturbed, interference is warranted where findings result from misreading or non-reading of material evidence or are contrary to settled principles governing equitable relief---Courts below failed to properly examine absence of timely tender, absence of financial proof, absence of immediate deposit in Court, defective pleadings under Form 47 C.P.C., and contractual stipulation making time material for payment---Concurrent judgments therefore could not be maintained. Cited Cases: • Habib Ur Rehman and others v. Abdul Karim through LRs 2025 SCMR 1262 • United Bank Limited through its President and others v. Jamil Ahmed and others 2024 SCMR 164 / 2024 PLC 50 SC • Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others 2014 SCMR 914 • Abdul Hameed and others v. Khalid and others 2007 SCMR 938 • Mst. Saadat Sultan and others v. Muhammad Zahur Khan and others 2006 SCMR 193 • Muhammad Aslam v. Mst. Ferozi and others PLD 2001 SC 213 • Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others 2001 SCMR 1700 (h) Specific performance---- ----Earlier agreement dated 16.04.2014---Agreement already cancelled by competent Court---Finality of judgment---No decree for specific performance sustainable---Petitioner Muhammad Imran sought possession through specific performance of agreement dated 16.04.2014---Courts below dismissed his suit, appeal and Regular Second Appeal---Supreme Court held that agreement sought to be specifically performed had already been cancelled by Court of competent jurisdiction due to non-payment of balance sale consideration within stipulated time, in terms of contractual conditions---Such determination was not assailed further and had attained finality---No decree for specific performance could legally be sustained on basis of such cancelled agreement---Petition was devoid of merit and leave was refused. Disposition: Petitions for leave to appeal in C.P.L.A. Nos. 3649 and 3650 of 2025 were converted into appeals and allowed; impugned judgments of courts below were set aside; suit for specific performance filed by respondents No.3 and 4 on basis of agreement dated 03.06.2016 was dismissed; suit for cancellation of agreement filed by petitioners/respondents was decreed; suit instituted by Muhammad Imran in C.P.L.A. No.3639 of 2025 for specific performance on basis of agreement dated 16.04.2014 was dismissed and leave refused; earnest money paid under agreements dated 16.04.2014 and 03.06.2016 was ordered to be returned by respective recipients to concerned payers within thirty days from date of judgment.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- ----Specific performance---Oral agreement to sell immovable property---Strict proof required---Respondents/plaintiffs sought specific performance on basis of alleged oral agreement dated 28.05.1992, allegedly arising out of reconciliation after acquittal in a murder case, whereby petitioner/defendant was said to have agreed to transfer 32 kanals of land to them---Supreme Court held that an oral agreement intended to bind parties may be valid and enforceable, but it must be proved through clearest and most satisfactory evidence---Basic ingredients of valid contract, including offer, acceptance, lawful consideration, mutuality of obligation, competency of parties and consensus ad idem, must be established through unimpeachable evidence. Cited Cases: • Hafiz Qari Abdul Fateh through LRs v. Ms. Urooj Fatima and others 2024 SCMR 1709 • Maqbool Ahmad v. Suleman Ali PLD 2003 SC 31 (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)---- ----S. 2(h)---Agreement---Oral agreement for sale of immovable property---Onus of proof---Supreme Court held that person seeking decree of specific performance on basis of oral agreement must prove that mutual agreement and consensus existed between parties regarding terms of contract---Oral agreement must satisfy legal requirements of an enforceable agreement under Contract Act, 1872---Respondents failed to prove essential elements of alleged bargain with requisite clarity and certainty. (c) Specific performance---- ----Oral agreement to sell---Pleadings---Date, time, place, witnesses, consideration and terms---Sine qua non---Supreme Court held that party claiming existence of oral agreement must clearly specify date, time, place and names of witnesses in pleadings, along with exact terms and conditions, consideration, subject matter and detail of striking of bargain---Such requirements are sine qua non for proving oral agreement to sell---Suits based on oral sale agreements are more susceptible to dishonest improvements in evidence and pleadings; therefore Courts must strictly insist upon foundational details at earliest stage. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Riaz and others v. Mst. Badshah Begum and others 2021 SCMR 605 • Moiz Abbas v. Mrs. Latifa and others 2019 SCMR 74 • Saddaruddin through LRs v. Sultan Khan through LRs and others 2021 SCMR 642 • Sheikh Akhtar Aziz v. Mst. Shabnam Begum and others 2019 SCMR 524 • Muhammad Nawaz through LRs v. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan through LRs 2013 SCMR 1300 (d) Pleadings and evidence---- ----Evidence beyond pleadings---Impermissible improvement---Oral agreement and alleged reconciliation committee/Jirga---Respondents’ plaint did not disclose with precision date, time and place of alleged oral agreement, exact terms and conditions, settled consideration, or names of witnesses before whom bargain was struck---Plea of reconciliation committee/Jirga was also not supported by necessary particulars in pleadings---Supreme Court held that attempt to supplement foundational deficiencies through oral testimony amounted to impermissible improvement beyond pleadings and could not be looked into---Parties must lead evidence in consonance with pleadings, and no evidence can be considered in support of a plea not properly taken. Cited Cases: • Saddaruddin through LRs v. Sultan Khan through LRs and others 2021 SCMR 642 • Sardar Muhammad Naseem Khan v. Returning Officer, PP-12 and others 2015 SCMR 1698 • Binyameen and others v. Chaudhry Hakim and another 1996 SCMR 336 (e) Specific performance---- ----Sale of immovable property---Requirements for enforcement---Transaction with title holder, offer, acceptance, competency, consideration and delivery of possession---Supreme Court reiterated that to enforce sale of immovable property, vendee must establish that transaction was made with title holder, offer was made and accepted, parties were competent, consensus ad idem existed, valid consideration was settled, and transaction was accompanied by delivery of possession---Respondents failed to satisfy such strict standard of proof in respect of alleged oral agreement. Cited Case: • Muhammad Yaqoob v. Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others PLD 2020 SC 338 (f) Specific performance---- ----Alleged possession and subsequent ownership mutation---Effect---Respondents alleged that possession had been delivered and petitioner became bound to transfer property after securing ownership rights through Mutation No.1314 dated 14.10.2016---Supreme Court held that mere assertions regarding possession or subsequent title could not substitute proof of valid oral agreement---Mere prolonged possession, even coupled with title documents, does not establish ownership or enforceable sale unless underlying sale agreement is legally proved. (g) Concurrent findings---- ----Specific performance decreed by Trial Court, maintained by Appellate Court and High Court---Concurrent findings contrary to settled law---Interference by Supreme Court---Trial Court, after remand, decreed suit for specific performance; Appellate Court dismissed petitioner’s appeal and High Court dismissed revision---Supreme Court held that Courts below failed to apply strict standard of proof mandated for oral agreements to sell immovable property---Findings suffered from misapplication of settled law and non-reading of material deficiencies in pleadings and proof---Concurrent findings cannot be allowed to stand where demonstrably contrary to principles repeatedly laid down by Supreme Court. Cited Cases: • Habib Ur Rehman and others v. Abdul Karim through LRs and others 2025 SCMR 1262 • United Bank Limited through its President and others v. Jamil Ahmed and others 2024 SCMR 164 / 2024 PLC 50 SC • Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others 2014 SCMR 914 • Abdul Hameed and others v. Khalid and others 2007 SCMR 938 • Mst. Saadat Sultan and others v. Muhammad Zahur Khan and others 2006 SCMR 193 • Muhammad Aslam v. Mst. Ferozi and others PLD 2001 SC 213 • Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others 2001 SCMR 1700 Disposition: Petition was converted into appeal and allowed; judgments and decrees passed by Trial Court, Appellate Court and Lahore High Court were set aside; suit filed by respondents for specific performance of alleged oral agreement stood dismissed; no order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)----S. 21(c)---Specific performance---Agreement to sell---Uncertainty in terms---Measurement and description of property not specified---Scope---Petitioner filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 21.04.2007---Agreement lacked measurement, khasra numbers, or precise description of land subject to sale---Held, under S. 21(c), a contract whose terms cannot be determined with reasonable certainty cannot be specifically enforced---Agreement failed to describe the property with clarity required by law---Plaintiff’s attorney failed to recall khasra number, reinforcing uncertainty---Trial Court rightly refused specific performance on this ground.(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)----S. 22---Discretionary relief---Specific performance not an absolute right---Trial Court's discretion---Scope of interference---Held, relief of specific performance is discretionary and not automatic even where contract is lawful---Trial Court exercised discretion judicially and in accordance with settled principles by refusing the decree---First Appellate Court upheld this exercise of discretion---Held further, second appellate Court will not interfere with such discretion unless found perverse or against law or judicial usage---Discretion exercised in present case found to be sound, reasonable, and untainted by legal error.(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S. 100---Second appeal---Concurrent findings---Scope---Held, where both Trial Court and First Appellate Court have concurrently refused specific performance on sound legal principles, second appellate jurisdiction is limited and interference unwarranted unless findings are perverse or in violation of law---No such infirmity found in concurrent judgments below---Appeal dismissed.Disposition: Second appeal dismissed; concurrent findings upheld; no order as to costs.Cited Cases:• Muhammad Miskeen v. District Judge Attock and others 2020 SCMR 406• Sheikh Akhtar Aziz v. Mst. Shabnam and others 2019 SCMR 524• Mian Muhammad Saleem and others v. Mst. Hameeda Begum and others 1987 SCMR 624• Naseer Ahmed Siddique through Legal Heirs v. Aftab Alam and another PLD 2011 SC 323Cited Statutes:• Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 21(c), 22• Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ---- S. 12—Specific performance of agreement to sell—Proof of agreement—Requirement of signatures/thumb impressions—Effect of unsigned first page Appellant filed suit for specific performance based on a two-page agreement to sell—Trial court decreed partial relief; appellate court granted full decree—However, High Court, in revision, dismissed the suit for specific performance and decreed the counter-suit for cancellation—Supreme Court affirmed High Court’s view—Held, where the first page of the agreement does not bear signatures or thumb impressions of either party or witnesses, and only the second page is signed, the document cannot be treated as a valid contract in law—Partial execution or selective authentication of agreement renders it legally unenforceable—Suit for specific performance rightly dismissed. Principle reaffirmed: Entire document must be signed or acknowledged for specific performance to be decreed. (b) Civil procedure—Appellate and revisional jurisdiction—Scope of interference by Supreme Court Supreme Court declined to interfere with High Court’s findings which were based on proper evaluation of both documentary and oral evidence—Held, where impugned findings are well-reasoned, supported by evidence, and aligned with legal precedent, Supreme Court will not reappraise facts or substitute its own view—Appeal dismissed accordingly. Principle: Concurrent findings based on sound legal reasoning and proper evidence do not warrant interference under Article 185(3) Constitution of Pakistan. Disposition: Appeal dismissed—Findings of High Court upheld—Suit for specific performance found unsustainable due to incomplete execution of agreement—Suit for cancellation decreed on legal grounds.

Summary: Background: This second appeal, filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenges the judgments and decrees of both the Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Wazirabad, which granted specific performance of a property sale agreement. The respondent had originally filed a suit for specific performance after the appellant allegedly failed to fulfill the obligations under the agreement to sell a plot of land, despite receiving partial payment. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering specific performance contingent on the payment of the remaining sale price. -----Issues: 1- Time as Essence of Contract: Whether the respondent's absence before the Sub-Registrar on the cut-off date precludes him from specific performance. -----2- Entitlement to Specific Performance vs. Double Earnest Money: Whether specific performance is justified instead of awarding double the earnest money as stipulated in the agreement. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court upheld the concurrent decisions, finding that the respondent had demonstrated the capacity and willingness to fulfill the agreement within the agreed timeframe. The trial court’s discretion to grant specific performance was deemed appropriate, as the respondent promptly filed suit the day after the cut-off date, evidencing readiness and willingness. Additionally, the stipulation for double earnest money was not a barrier to specific performance. The Court dismissed the second appeal, concluding that no legal errors or procedural defects warranted interference. -----Citations/Precedents: Dr. Mian Anjum Habib and another vs. Waseem Ahmed Khan and another (2014 SCMR 1621): Reinforces that specific performance may be granted even with stipulations for double earnest money. Muhammad Abdur Rehman Qureshi vs. Sagheer Ahmad (2017 SCMR 1696): Addressed principles of time being of essence in contracts. Ms. Sara Bibi vs. Muhammad Saleem and others (PLD 2021 Islamabad 236): Discussed requirements for readiness and willingness in performance. Lehrasap Khan and others vs. Muhammad Sarwar Khan and another (2002 YLR 3223): Supported prompt suit filing as evidence of readiness. Taj Deen vs. Muhammad Tufail and others (2015 YLR 2562): Emphasized necessity of credible evidence when claiming readiness to perform. Muhammad Sarwar alias Babar vs. Muhammad Yasin (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others (2024 MLD 467): Highlighted insufficiency of Sub-Registrar applications as proof of readiness. Shaukat Ali and others vs. Javeed Qureshi and others (2002 CLC 1578): Similar findings on readiness and willingness. Gulzar Ahmad and others vs. Muhammad Aslam and others (2022 SCMR 1433): Reinforced appeal grounds for errors of law or procedural defects.

Summary: ----Quote: Non- tendering of the remaining sale consideration, on or before the date given in an agreement to sell would be fatal for the suit in case no reasonable explanation in available for the delay caused. ----Background: The petitioner challenged the appellate court's decision that reversed the trial court's order, which had rejected the respondent's plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The case involves a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 02.03.1999, concerning an 8-kanal property. The agreement stipulated a specific date for the payment of the remaining sale consideration, but the payment was not made within the specified time. The respondent initially sought enforcement of the agreement through the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) but later pursued the matter in civil court after FCR was repealed. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondent's failure to tender the remaining sale consideration within the agreed time invalidated the suit for specific performance. 2- Whether the non-payment and non-deposit of the remaining sale consideration at any stage of the proceedings affected the respondent's claim for specific performance. 3- Whether the plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court allowed the civil revision, setting aside the appellate court's decision and reinstating the trial court's order to reject the plaint. The court reasoned that: The agreement specified that time was of the essence, and the respondent's failure to tender the remaining sale consideration within the stipulated time, or even within 18 years, demonstrated a lack of bona fides. The respondent's failure to deposit the remaining sale consideration in court, even after being given opportunities, further weakened his case for specific performance. The justification provided by the respondent for withholding payment was not reasonable, and continuing with the suit would be futile. The court cited relevant precedents, including Muhammad Islam and others vs. Muhammad Anwar (2023 SCMR 1371) and Hamood Mehmood vs. Mst. Shabana Ishaque and others (2017 SCMR 2022), to emphasize that a party cannot seek specific performance if they fail to perform their part of the contract, especially when time is of the essence. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Islam and others vs. Muhammad Anwar (2023 SCMR 1371) Hamood Mehmood vs. Mst. Shabana Ishaque and others (2017 SCMR 2022) Faqir Hussain and another vs. Khan Sher (C.R.No.283-P/2024)

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement, along with a declaration and injunction, against the respondents concerning agricultural land measuring 37 Ghuntas in Survey No. 42, Deh Qadirpur Taluka, and District Ghotki. The suit (F.C. No. 27 of 1999) was decreed in favor of the petitioner ex-parte on May 20, 2005. Respondents No.2-6 appealed the decision, and the District Judge, Ghotki, overturned the trial court's decision on August 18, 2006. The petitioner filed a civil revision in the High Court, which upheld the appellate court's decision on November 29, 2021. The petitioner has now brought the matter before the Supreme Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner proved the existence of an oral agreement of sale according to the law. 2- Whether the decisions of the lower courts were justified based on the evidence presented. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court held that an oral agreement requires the clearest and most satisfactory evidence to be enforceable. The petitioner failed to provide sufficient details of the oral agreement, such as the date, time, place, names of witnesses, and specific conditions, in the pleadings. Additionally, the petitioner did not justify the authority of Respondent No.1's father to enter into the agreement on her behalf. The court found the receipt for payment to be dubious, as it was not corroborated by the testimony of key witnesses. The testimonies of the petitioner's witnesses were inconsistent and did not support the petitioner's claim. The Supreme Court emphasized that no amount of evidence can substitute for the lack of proper pleadings. The court found no misreading or non-reading of evidence by the lower courts and held that the findings of the appellate court and the High Court were justified and plausible. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. ----Citations/Precedents: Maqbool Ahmad v. Suleman Ali (PLD 2003 SC 31) Muhammad Riaz and others v. Mst. Badshah Begum and others (2021 SCMR 605) Moiz Abbas v. Mrs. Latifa and others (2019 SCMR 74) Government of West Pakistan v. Haji Muhammad (PLD 1976 SC 469) Abrar Ahmad v. Irshad Ahmed (PLD 2014 SC 331) ----Quote: The law regarding oral agreements is clear; all terms and conditions agreed upon orally between the parties must be explicitly stated in detail in the pleadings and substantiated with strong and independent evidence.

Summary: Background: This case involves an appeal filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated September 22, 2020, passed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore. The respondent had instituted a suit for recovery of PKR 1,500,000 under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The suit was based on an agreement for the sale of a vehicle and a dishonored cheque issued by the appellant. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant, acting as a surety, is liable to pay the amount under the dishonored cheque without first adjudging the liability of the principal-debtor. 2- Whether the agreements executed between the parties, including the subsequent agreement, released the appellant from his liability. 3- Whether the trial court's decision to grant the decree in favor of the respondent was justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Liability of the Surety: The court held that the appellant's liability as a surety is co-extensive with that of the principal-debtor, as per Section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872. The appellant had explicitly undertaken to pay the amount, and there was no provision in the contract requiring the liability to be adjudged against the principal-debtor first. The court rejected the argument that the principal-debtor needed to be proceeded against before the suit could be filed against the appellant. --Agreements and Liability: The court found that the second agreement did not rescind the first agreement or release the appellant from his liability. The clause in the second agreement referred to the first agreement and confirmed the appellant's continued liability as a surety. The appellant's thumbprints and signatures on the agreements indicated his acknowledgment and acceptance of the terms. --Trial Court's Decision: The court affirmed the trial court's decision, noting that the respondent had presented sufficient evidence, including the dishonored cheque and witness testimonies, to support his claim. The appellant had failed to rebut the presumption of correctness and valid consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's decree and awarding further costs to the respondent. ----Citations/Precedents: Contract Act, 1872 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 AIR 1992 Orissa 281 AIR 1969 Supreme Court 297 PLD 1993 Karachi 90 PLD 1982 Karachi 577 AIR 1957 Patna 256 The titled appeal was dismissed as meritless, with additional costs of PKR 250,000 imposed on the appellant. The respondent's appeal regarding the claim for interest was dismissed as not pressed, following the respondent's counsel's instructions.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199----Writ jurisdiction----Scope of interference by High Court----Concurrent findings of fact----Finality of unchallenged decree The petitioner challenged the dismissal of their objection petition in execution proceedings and the appellate court's decision. It was held that the original judgment and decree, having attained finality due to the petitioner’s failure to file an appeal against the trial court's judgment, could not be revisited in execution proceedings. The executing court cannot go behind the decree, nor can it re-examine or modify its terms. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court does not extend to disturbing concurrent findings of fact unless there is a clear case of illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional defect. Disposition: Writ petition dismissed in limine as being devoid of force. Cited Cases: Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Aziz-ur-Rehman Chaudhary (2016 SCMR 14) Syed Riaz Ahmad Shan v. Dayal Singh College Trust Society (1972 SCMR 237) Muhammad Ali v. Ghulam Sarwar (1989 SCMR 640) Mst. Naseem Akhtar v. Shalimar General Insurance Company Limited (1994 SCMR 22) Irshad Masih v. Emmanuel Masih (2014 SCMR 1481) Muhammad Tariq Khan v. Khawaja Muhammad Jawad Asami (2007 SCMR 818) Zulfiqar Ali v. Judge, Family Court (2007 MLD 1710) (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----Execution of decree----Scope of executing court----Jurisdiction limited to executing decree in its terms The petitioner argued that the decree was non-executable due to policy restrictions. The court reiterated that the executing court cannot question the validity, propriety, or correctness of a decree. Its jurisdiction is confined to implementing the decree as it stands unless the decree is patently void or a nullity. The objections raised by the petitioner amounted to indirectly challenging the original judgment, which is not permissible during execution. Disposition: Objection petition rightly dismissed as the executing court cannot go behind the decree. Cited Cases: Muhammad Ali v. Ghulam Sarwar (1989 SCMR 640) Mst. Naseem Akhtar v. Shalimar General Insurance Company Limited (1994 SCMR 22) Province of Punjab v. Burewala Textile Mills Limited (2001 SCMR 396) Tauqeer Ahmad Qureshi v. Additional District Judge, Lahore (PLD 2009 SC 760) (c) Administrative Law ----Public policy restrictions----Non-challenge of original decree----Effect on subsequent execution proceedings The petitioner raised objections based on departmental policies regarding property transfer. The court held that such objections could not override a decree that had attained finality. Administrative or policy restrictions should have been raised during the trial, and failure to do so bars the petitioner from raising them in execution proceedings. Disposition: Policy-based objections rejected as they were not raised during the trial phase. Cited Cases: Muhammad Ali v. Ghulam Sarwar (1989 SCMR 640) Allah Ditta v. Ahmed Ali Shah (2003 SCMR 1202) (d) Administration of Justice ----Finality of decree----Doctrine of past and closed transactions----Scope of objections in execution proceedings A decree that has not been challenged in the appellate stage attains finality and becomes a past and closed transaction. The executing court is duty-bound to implement it without modification. The objections raised in execution proceedings that could have been raised during the trial or appeal are inadmissible. Disposition: Decree held executable as passed, objections dismissed. Cited Cases: Muhammad Ali v. Zakir Hussain (PLD 2005 Lahore 331) Fakir Abdullah v. Government of Sindh (PLD 2001 SC 131) (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----S. 47----Objections to execution----Limited scope----When objections are permissible Objections regarding executability are only permissible if the decree is patently void, a nullity, passed without jurisdiction, or violates a legal provision. In this case, none of these exceptions were applicable. The petitioner’s objections were meritless and amounted to an attempt to delay execution. Disposition: Objections dismissed, and the decree directed to be executed in letter and spirit. Cited Cases: Tauqeer Ahmad Qureshi v. Additional District Judge, Lahore (PLD 2009 SC 760) Muhammad Tariq Khan v. Khawaja Muhammad Jawad Asami (2007 SCMR 818) Final Outcome: Writ petition dismissed in limine, and objections in execution proceedings were rejected. The decree was held executable in its original terms.