Summary: Issue:The primary issue was whether the appellant's suit for declaration of ownership, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction regarding the disputed property was barred by the statute of limitations.---Judgment:The Supreme Court, presided over by Justices Afridi and Malik, dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court found that the appellant's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The appellant had acknowledged certain transactions and partitions concerning the disputed property, which had occurred more than a decade prior to the filing of his suit in 1998. The Court emphasized that the appellant's suit, filed 14 years after the impugned mutation in 1984, exceeded the six-year limitation period prescribed for such claims. Consequently, even if some claims might have been within time, they were rendered legally ineffective since the main relief sought was time-barred.---Legal Principles:The Court relied on the established legal principle that when the main relief sought in a suit is barred by time, any consequential reliefs, even if filed within the limitation period, cannot be granted. The distinction between "actual denial of right" and "apprehended/threatened denial of right" was highlighted, with the Court noting that an "actual denial" triggers the limitation period for filing a suit. The decision also referenced precedents regarding the limitation period for co-owners of joint property to challenge transactions that infringe upon their rights.---Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant's failure to timely challenge the transactions and partitions that effectively denied his ownership rights rendered his subsequent claims for declaration, possession, and injunction legally untenable. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred, underscoring the importance of adhering to the statutory limitation periods in property disputes.

Summary: Facts:The appellant allegedly borrowed Rs.1,000,000/- from the respondent, executing a pronote and receipt with a promise to repay by 15.03.2015.Upon non-repayment, the respondent sued for recovery.The appellant contested, arguing that the signatures on the pronote were obtained under duress during a compromise in a criminal case involving the respondent and the appellant's son-in-law.The trial court decreed in favor of the respondent.------Issues:Whether the pronote was executed under duress and is thus invalid.Whether the respondent had the financial capacity to lend the claimed amount.The applicability of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, regarding the presumptions attached to negotiable instruments and the burden of proof.The relevance of the financial status of the respondent in determining the plausibility of the loan.-----Decision:The court considered the peculiar circumstances, including the strained relationship due to a criminal case and the respondent's financial capacity as a driver. The court held that these factors made the execution of the pronote under the claimed conditions improbable and that the appellant successfully rebutted the presumption of the pronote's validity. Thus, the burden of proof shifted back to the respondent to prove the lawful execution of the pronote, which the trial court failed to consider adequately.-----Holding:The appeal was allowed, indicating that the trial court's judgment was set aside or modified to reflect the appellate court's findings regarding the improbability of the loan under the circumstances and the successful rebuttal of the pronote's presumption of validity by the appellant.

Summary: ---Issues:1. Whether the general attorney (the father of respondent No.1) had the authority to gift the property to the petitioner without explicit permission from his principal (respondent No.1).2. The legitimacy of Babar Anwar's claim to the property, c

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a civil appeal against the decision of the Additional District Judge Kotli, which dismissed his application under Section 12(2) CPC for setting aside a judgment and decree dated 18.04.2019. The original suit was filed by respondents 2 to 5 for specific performance against respondent 1, which was decreed in their favor. ----Issues: 1- Whether the order passed under Section 12(2) CPC is appealable. 2- Whether the appellant’s claims of fraud and misrepresentation were substantiated. 3- Whether the appeal should be treated as a revision petition due to the procedural error. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Non-Appealable Order: The court held that an order dismissing an application under Section 12(2) CPC is not a decree and is not appealable under Section 104 or Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC. The correct legal remedy would have been to file a revision petition under Section 115 CPC. The appellant’s failure to make a request to treat the appeal as a revision petition within the prescribed period rendered the appeal not competent. --Lack of Substantiation of Fraud: The appellant alleged that the judgment and decree were obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, as the land was transferred without proper partition. However, the entitlement certificate issued to Mohammad Shakeel indicated that the land was within his shares and subject to partition. The court found that the appellant failed to point out any specific instances of fraud, forgery, or misrepresentation in the judgment and decree. --Procedural Error: The court acknowledged its power to convert and treat an appeal as a revision petition but noted that this power must consider the limitation period. The court was not inclined to exercise this power after a lapse of five years. The order passed under Section 12(2) CPC did not culminate in a decree but remained an order passed on a miscellaneous application, for which only a revision under Section 115 CPC was available. The court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and was not maintainable. It dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs. ----Citations/Precedents: 2013 CLC 411 2015 CLC 752 2004 YLR 1066 1997 MLD 2003 PLD 1990 Lah 425 The judgment was duly signed and the parties or their counsel were directed to be intimated accordingly.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 210---Qatl-i-amd, causing the disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen an offender---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant by firing---Prosecution's case hinged upon the testimonies of two witnesses as well as the ocular-account furnished by another eye-witness of the occurrence--- One of the eye-witness in his examination-in-chief almost reiterated the same facts as advanced in the 'Murasila' followed by the FIR lodged by the complainant, qua the effective role of committing the murder of the deceased, by the accused/appellant, by firing at him through his Kalashnikov and that too inside the premises of his house---Said witness had come up with a very straight-forward and natural narrations of the occurrence in terms that on the fateful day he in the company of other witness, accompanied the deceased, in order to bring the female witness to the house of her parents and at the relevant time they were sitting in theBaitak/guest room and upon hearing the sound of quarrel as well as pursuant to the call of female eye-witness when they went inside the house they saw the accused/appellant, while being duly armed with Kalashnikov started firing at victim, as a result of it, he got hit and died on the spot---Said witness was cross-examined at considerable length by the defence, however, the probative worth of his testimony qua the effective role of committing the murder of the deceased could not be shattered---Same was the case with the testimony of another eye-witness of the occurrence, i.e. female witness---Said witness in her examination-in-chief deposed almost the same narrations of the occurrence as advanced by eye-witness, qua the murder of the deceased, committed by nobody else but her real husband, therefore, this element alone excluded all possibilities of consultations or deliberations on the part of the complainant-party qua implication of the accused/appellant as a single accused in the case in hand---Though, complainant was not an eye-witness of the occurrence, however his account furnished in the Court was adamant of the fact that the deceased, in the company of other eye-witnesses, went to the house of the accused/appellant in order to pick the other female witness---Prosecution also made reliance on the account of another female witness, who in her examination-in-chief had put-forward the purpose of the visit of the complainant party to the house of the accused/appellant---Complainant as well as the eye-witness were cross-examined at a substantial length, however, nothing favourable to the accused/appellant could be extracted from their mouths qua the presence of the deceased and other eye-witnesses at the venue of crime i.e. the house of the accused/appellant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt, however due to some mitigating circumstances, the sentence of life imprisonment was reduced to imprisonment for ten years--- With said modification in sentence, the appeal was partly allowed. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 210---Qatl-i-amd, causing the disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen an offender---Appreciation of evidence---Related and interested witnesses, evidence of---Reliance---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant by firing---Defence raised an objection in respect of the testimonies of the witnesses being closely related to the deceased---It was transparent from the record that neither during the investigation nor during the trial an iota of evidence surfaced which could prima facie speak of any ill-will or mala fide on part of the star witnesses of the prosecution which could strike a prudent mind as to depose falsely against the accused/appellant for their vested interest---Moreover, mere relationship of witnesses with deceased per se would not render them interested or partisan witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt, however due to some mitigating circumstances, the sentence of life imprisonment was reduced to imprisonment for ten years--- With said modification in sentence, the appeal was partly allowed. Qamar-uz-Zaman alias Kala v. The State 2011 SCMR 856 and Naik Muhammad alias Nika and another v. The State 2007 SCMR 1639 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 210---Qatl-i-amd, causing the disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen an offender---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence supporting the prosecution case---Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant by firing---Medical evidence furnished by Medical Officer further boosted and substantiated the version of the prosecution---As per Medico-Legal Report of the deceased, he had received multiple firearm injuries on his body, which was exactly in consonance with the story of the prosecution, therefore, the medical evidence of the subject event duly supported the stance of the prosecution---Even otherwise, corroboration was only rule of caution and not a rule of law---If testimony of an eye-witness was found reliable and trustworthy then there was hardly any need to look for any corroboration---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt, however due to some mitigating circumstances, the sentence of life imprisonment was reduced to imprisonment for ten years---With said modification in sentence, the appeal was partly allowed. Muhammad Waris v. The State 2008 SCMR 784 and Shafat Ali and others v. The State PLD 2005 SC 288 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 210---Qatl-i-amd, causing the disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen an offender---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of blood stained earth, crime empties from the spot and weapon of offence---Reliance---Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant by firing---In the present case, there was circumstantial evidence in the form of recovery of blood stained earth, crime empties of 7.62 bore from the spot and weapon of offence i.e. Kalashnikov, on the pointation of the accused/appellant coupled with positive Forensic Science Laboratory Report, therefore, the circumstantial evidence was also in line with the version of the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt, however due to some mitigating circumstances, the sentence of life imprisonment was reduced to imprisonment for ten years---With said modification in sentence, the appeal was partly allowed. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 302(c) & 210---Qatl-i-amd, causing the disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen an offender---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Mitigating circumstances---Spur of the moment occurrence---No premeditation to murder ---Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant by firing---Record showed that there was an ordinate delay of one hour in reporting the matter to the local police despite the fact that as per version of the prosecution the complainant was informed well within time by the eye-witness, through his mobile phone from the alleged occurrence of the murder of the deceased, therefore, he was under statutory obligation to inform the local police with utmost promptitude, however, as per available record, the prosecution could not furnish any plausible explanation qua the delay of one hour in reporting the matter to the local police---It was evident from the bare perusal of the record that the most important and relevant eye-witness of the occurrence was not examined by the prosecution, therefore, an inference could be drawn within the meaning of Art.129(g), Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 that had he been produced he would have not supported the case of prosecution---In the present case, the testimony of female witness was of no legal worth for the prosecution qua the guilt of the accused/appellant, as her name had neither been mentioned in the 'Murasila' followed by the FIR nor she had been cited as an eye-witness of the occurrence in the site plan---There was also in field the delayed statement of the said female witness, whose testimony could be of paramount importance to the case of prosecution as she was nobody else but the real wife of the accused/appellant and aunt of the deceased---Other than this, the prosecution had not been able to bring on record motive that why the accused/appellant was all-out to kill the deceased and that too inside the premises of his house rather the motive as set-up by the prosecution in the form of verbal altercation prima facie suggested that the occurrence might have taken place at the spur of the moment, therefore, prima facie, it seemed that the accused/appellant was having no premeditation or intention to kill the deceased---Such minor weaknesses might be considered for reduction of the sentence---Similarly, in eventuality when an accused person committed an offence without any premeditation or planning and in the heat of a free-fight struck the deceased with a single blow the case of accused would come within clause (c) of S.302, P.P.C---Conviction of accused recorded under S.302(b), P.P.C, was altered to one under S.302(c), P.P.C---Consequently, sentence of life imprisonment awarded to accused was reduced to ten years imprisonment---With said modification in sentence, appeal against conviction was partially allowed, in circumstances. Mst. Bevi v. Ghulam Shabbir and another 1980 SCMR 859; Mir Muhammad alias Miro v. The State 2009 SCMR 1188; Muhammad Ayaz Khan v. Murtaza and others 2008 SCMR 984; Kamran Ullah v. The State and another 2020 SCMR 1214 and Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State PLD 2017 SC 165 rel. Rahim Ullah for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 267-M of 2021). Hafiz Ashfaq Ahmad, Asst: A.G for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 267-M of 2021). Ashfaq Ahmad Khan for Respondent/Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 267-M of 2021). Ashfaq Ahmad Khan for Petitioner/Complainant (in Criminal Revision No. 72-M of 2021). Rahim Ullah for Respondent (in Criminal Revision No. 72-M of 2021). Hafiz Ashfaq Ahmad, Asst: A.G for the State (in Criminal Revision No. 72-M of 2021). Date of hearing: 23rd January, 2024.

Summary: If after grant of ad-interim pre-arrest bail in a case, accused has been arrested and confined in jail in another case then his petition for pre-arrest bail will not be dismissed due to non-prosecution rather same will be decided after procuring his attendance.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 375-A, 377 & 34---Gang rape, sodomy, common intention---Post-arrest bail , grant of---Further inquiry --- Dubious role of prosecution witnesses---Allegation against the applicant was that he, along with another accused , forcibly took away the complainant's son (victim) on the force of pistol ,and the victim later disclosed to the prosecution witnesses about the act of sodomy committed with him by both accused---Pertinently, though both prosecution witnesses were present at the scene, yet they did not attempt to restrain the accused--- Subsequently, the applicant / accused left the victim near a bank---Surprisingly, both prosecution witnesses were actively searching for the victim at the same location and did not set the criminal law into motion---Further , as per the narrative of said witnesses , applicant/accused dropped the victim from their motorcycle and managed to escape easily--Said scenario raised questions as to why both prosecution witnesses did not prevent the applicant / accused from escaping once again---Continuous presence of said witnesses during all such period at the same place when the applicant / accused was being taken away and left suggested further inquiry into guilt of accused--- Bail was granted to accused, in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 375-A, 377 & 34---Gang rape, sodomy, common intention---Post-arrest bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Severity of an offence---Evidence, requirement of---Discretion of Court---Allegation against the applicant was that he, along with another accused , forcibly took away the complainant's son (victim) on the force of pistol and the victim later disclosed to the prosecution witnesses about the act of sodomy committed with him by both accused---Severity of an offence alone is not sufficient ground to denya bail plea---The fundamental concept underlying bail is that the liberty of an innocent person should not be restricted until proven otherwise---Section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, establishes that for bail to be granted, the court must be convinced, based on the evidence presented, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment; this section also emphasizes that the court should consider whether there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the accused's guilt---Such further inquiry should indicate to the case's outcome and demonstrate or tend to show the accused's innocence---Bail, being a discretionary relief, requires the court to exercise its discretion fairly and judiciously---In the context of the court, the term "discretion" implies sound judgment guided by the law, aiming to alleviate the hardship faced by individuals---Bail should not be denied as a form of punishment---Bail was granted to accused, in circumstances. (c) Criminal Procedure Code ( V of 1898 ) --- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 375-A, 377 & 34 --- Gang rape, sodomy, common intention---Post-arrest bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Negative DNA report---Allegation against the applicant was that he, along with another accused, forcibly took away the complainant's son (victim) on the force of pistol ,and the victim later disclosed to the prosecution witnesses about the act of sodomy committed with him by both accused---Upon examining the DNA report, it was evident that the DNA profile of victim did not match that of the applicant / accused ; thus, the medical record did not establish any connection between the applicant/accused and the alleged crime--- Bail was granted to accused, in circumstances. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860) , Ss. 375-A, 377 & 34---Gang rape, sodomy, common intention---Post-arrest bail, grant of---Further inquiry ---Allegation against the applicant was that he, along with another accused , forcibly took away the complainant's son (victim) on the force of pistol and the victim later disclosed to the prosecution witnesses about the act of sodomy committed with him by both accused---Applicant/ accused had been in custody since his arrest---Though the report under S.173 of the Cr.P.C had been submitted to the trial court, yet there has been no progress in the trial so far---Continued detention of the applicant/accused foran indefinite period would not serve any meaningful purpose for the prosecution---Applicant / accused had presented a case warranting further inquiry, as outlined in S.497(2) of the Cr.P.C.---Bail was granted to accused, in circumstances. Abdul Ghaffar v. The State and others 2016 SCMR 1523 ref. Afzal Karim Virk for Applicant. Dhani Bakhsh Mari, Assistant P.G Sindh for the State. Ghulam Nabi Meo for the Complainant along with Complainant. Order Amjad Ali Bohio, J .--- Applicant/ accused Habibullah son of Abdul Khan, seeks post-arrest bail in FIR No. 96/2023, registered at PS Digri under Sections 375-A, 377, and 34 P.P.C, as his bail application was dismissed through order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/GBV/Anti-rape Court Mirpurkhas. 2. Allegedly, the complainant's son Shahzaib was forcibly taken away on the force of pistol by the accused Habibullah accompanied by Imam Bux alias Machhar, both belonging to the Bharmani caste. Incident is alleged to have been witnessed by PWs Sajid Ali and Abid Ali on the road leading towards Tando Ghulam Ali. After some time the accused left the victim Shahzaib, at the National Bank in Digri, where same PWs Sajid Ali and Abid Ali were already present. The victim disclosed to the witnessed about the act of sodomy committed against him by both accused. This incident was subsequently conveyed to the complainant, and on , 09.09.2023, the complainant's husband brought the victim to PS Digri. Following this, the victim was referred for his medical examination, leading to the lodging of the FIR on 10.09.2023. 3. The counsel for the applicant/accused argued that the final medical report of victim Shahzaib, submitted by the Medical Officer at Taluka Hospital, Digri, in letter No.309 dated 03.11.2023 after receiving the DNA report, indicates that semen, blood, and clothing samples were sent to the Forensic and Molecular Biology Laboratory, Jamshoro and it was opined that these samples did not match with those of the applicant/accused, Habibullah, and Imam Bux alias Machhar. This fact according to him is unrebutted. Furthermore, the counsel asserted that the investigation has been concluded, and the applicant/accused is confined in jail. Consequently, he contended that there is no need for further investigation involving the physical custody of the accused. The counsel went on to argue that the prosecution's narrative appears questionable from the outset. According to him, the applicant/accused allegedly took away the victim in the presence of PWs Sajid Ali and Abid Ali, who despite being the victim's uncles, failed to resist or pursue the culprits. This raised suspicions, especially considering that the same witnesses were present at the location where the applicant/accused supposedly left the victim after committing the alleged offence of sodomy. It is asserted that it is quite unusual that PWs Sajid Ali and Abid Ali did not attempt to apprehend the culprits and allowed them to escape freely. In support of his argument, he relied upon the case laws reported as 2016 SCMR 1523 [Supreme Court of Pakistan], 2023 PCr.LJ Note 19 [Islamabad], 2018 PCr.LJ Note 132 [Sindh], 2019 MLD 1168 [Lahore] and 2021 PCr.LJ 1209. 4. The counsel representing the complainant and the learned Assistant Prosecutor General (A.P.G) opposed the bail application on the grounds that the applicant/accused is named in the FIR, facing allegations of committing the offense of sodomy against victim Shahzaib. They further argue that proper order has been passed for dismissal of bail application. 5. Prima facie as per the details mentioned in the FIR, both accused allegedly used pistols to take the victim on their motorcycle, heading towards Tando Ghulam Ali road. It is pertinent to mention that PWs Sajid Ali and Abid Ali though were present at the scene, yet they did not attempt to restrain the accused. Subsequently, the accused left the victim near the National Bank in Digri. Surprisingly, PWs Sajid Ali and Abid Ali were actively searching for the victim at the same location and did not set the criminal law into motion. Further as per their narrative applicant/accused dropped the victim from their motorcycle and managed to escape easily. This scenario raises questions as to why PWs Sajid Ali and Abid Ali did not prevent the accused from escaping once again. The victim then disclosed to both witnesses about the alleged act of sodomy committed by the accused at bushes in the lands of Mir Khan Bahadur. 6. The continuous presence of PWs Sajid Ali and Abid Ali during all such period at the same place when the accused was being taken away and left suggests for further inquiry. Moreover, following the arrest of the accused, the Medical Officer at Taluka Hospital, Digri, conducted medical examination. The applicant/accused provided blood samples and a sealed parcel of clothes for Forensic DNA testing through L.U.M.H.S Laboratory, Jamshoro. Upon receiving the DNA report dated 30.10.2023 (vide letter No.LUMHS/FML/731/2023), the Medical Officer at Taluka Hospital, Digri, in a letter dated 03.11.2023 (No.309), submitted the final Medico legal report which is included in the police papers. This report revealed that the DNA profile of victim Shahzaib did not match that of the applicant/accused. Consequently, it is argued that the case against the applicant/accused necessitates further inquiry. Moreover, the accused is in judicial custody and is no more required for further investigation. 7. It is the well-established legal principle that the severity of an offence alone is not sufficient ground to deny a bail plea. The fundamental concept underlying bail is that the liberty of an innocent person should not be restricted until proven otherwise. Section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code establishes that for bail to be granted, the court must be convinced, based on the evidence presented, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of an offence punishable for death or life imprisonment. This section also emphasizes that the court should consider whether there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the accused's guilt. Such further inquiry should indicate to the case's outcome and demonstrate or tend to show the accused's innocence. Bail, being a discretionary relief, requires the court to exercise its discretion fairly and judiciously. In the context of the court, the term "discretion" implies sound judgment guided by the law, aiming to alleviate the hardship faced by individuals. A foundational legal principle asserts that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment. 8. Upon examining the DNA report, it is evident that the medical record does not establish any connection between the applicant/accused and the alleged crime. The applicant/accused has been in custody since the arrest on 10.09.2023. The report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been submitted to the trial court on 09.11.2023, yet there has been no progress in the trial so far. Under these circumstances, the continued detention of the applicant/accused for an indefinite period would not serve any meaningful purpose for the prosecution. Reference is made to the precedent set by the esteemed Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Abdul Ghaffar v. The State and others (2016 SCMR 1523) to support the argument. A preliminary examination of the records indicates that the applicant has presented a case warranting further inquiry, as outlined in Section 497(2) of the Cr.P.C. 9. Considering the circumstances outlined above, instant bail application is granted subject to furnishing solvent surety amounting to Rs.100,000/- (One Hundred Thousand) and a Personal Recognizance bond in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. 10. Needless to mention that, this is a tentative assessment which shall not affect the trial of case in any manner. MQ/H-15/Sindh Bail granted.

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 17, 79 & 81---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement---Agreement to sell---Proof---Admission by the executant---Effect---Second marginal witness of agreement, non-producing of---Effect---Suit of the plaintiff (respondent / vendee) was concurrently decreed on the basis that execution of agreement-to-sell was admitted by the defendant (appellant / vendor) in a prior suit---Validity---For the purposes of proof of a document falling under the purview of Art. 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 ('the Order 1984'), two attesting witnesses must be examined as per requirement of Art. 79 of the Order, 1984---However, the rigors and clutches of the said requirement envisaged under Art. 17 read with Art. 79 of the Order 1984 subside where the execution of a document is admitted---In such a situation, the plaintiff is not bound to produce both the marginal witnesses in order to prove the execution of the agreement---Though, the documents were required to be attested by two witnesses but where the executant admits the execution of the document, then in terms of Art. 81 of the Order, 1984 such document can be used against him though it was required by law to be attested---Article 81 of the Order, 1984 is an exception to the general rule that where a document is required by law to be attested, the same cannot be used in evidence unless two attesting witnesses are called for the purposes of proving its execution---As the agreement in the present case had been admitted in the prior suit filed by the respondent against the appellant, by recording statement before the Trial Court (statement-in-question), the non-production of both the marginal witnesses was not fatal to the case of the respondent---Thus, the suit for specific performance of the contract based on an agreement to sell can be decreed even if the second marginal witnesses of the agreement is not produced by the vendee in compliance of Art. 79 of the Order, 1984 in cases which fall within the purview of Art. 81 which is an exception to the rule contained under Art. 79 of the Order, 1984---Both the Courts below had correctly appreciated the controversy while decreeing the suit of the respondent---Regular second appeal, being merit-less, was dismissed. Abbas Ali v. Liaqat Ali and others 2013 SCMR 1600 and Abdul Aziz v. Abdul Hameed (deceased) through LRs. 2022 SCMR 842 ref. Mst. Saeeda Anwar and 3 others v. Malik Bashir Ahmad and others 2009 MLD 1314 and Sheikh Muhammad Munir v. Mst. Feezan PLD 2021 SC 538 distinguished. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 17, 79, 81 & 91---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement---Agreement to sell---Proof---Admission by the executant in prior suit---Effect---Judicial proceedings---Presumption of genuineness---Second marginal witness of agreement, non-producing of---Effect---Suit of the plaintiff / respondent was concurrently decreed on the basis that agreement-to-sell was admitted by the defendant (appellant / vendor) in a prior suit---Validity---As the agreement had been admitted in the prior suit filed by the respondent against the appellant, by recording statement before the Trial Court (statement-in-question), the non-production of both the marginal witnesses was not fatal to the case of the respondent---Moreover, in terms of Art. 91 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 ('the Order, 1984'), presumption of genuineness was attached to documents forming part of the judicial proceedings---Statement-in-question (having been exhibited in the present case) pertaining to the agreement was recorded during the judicial proceedings that took place in the a prior suit and fell under the purview of Art. 91 read with Art. 81 of the Order, 1984 and its effect could not be brushed aside lightly---Thus, the suit for specific performance of the contract based on an agreement to sell can be decreed even if the second marginal witnesses of the agreement is not produced by the vendee in compliance of Art. 79 of the Order, 1984 in cases which fall within the purview of Art. 81 which is an exception to the rule contained under Art. 79 of the Order 1984---Both the Courts below had correctly appreciated the controversy while decreeing the suit of the respondent---Regular second appeal, being merit-less, was dismissed. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 17, 79 & 81---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement---Agreement to sell---Proof---Admission by the executant---Effect---Second marginal witness of agreement, non-producing of---Effect---Suit of the plaintiff / respondent was concurrently decreed, on the basis that agreement-to-sell was admitted by the defendant (appellant / vendor) in a prior suit by recording his statement (statement-in-question)---Assertion of the appellant was that the statement-in-question did not belong to him and his signature and thumb impression had been forged and fabricated by playing fraud upon the Court---Held, that said assertion was belied by the report of Finger Expert Bureau which was also available on the record and was duly corroborated by testimony of Inspector Police Finger Expert Print Bureau, Punjab, as a witness of plaintiff; according to which the thumb impression available on the agreement was identical to the specimen thumb impression marked (as D, D/1 and D/2)---Thus, mere assertion of the appellant (that he did not appear in the prior suit and had not recorded any statement nor affixed his thumb impression on the order sheet of the prior suit) could not be relied upon nor the same was sufficient and cogent to rebut the presumption of truth attached to judicial proceedings---Sanctity of highest order was attached to judicial proceedings and to outweigh the same, strong and unimpeachable evidence was to be produced---Appellant had failed to bring on record any such evidence---Both the Courts below had correctly appreciated the controversy while decreeing the suit of the respondent---Regular second appeal, being merit-less, was dismissed. (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 17, 79, 81 & 91---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement---Agreement to sell---Proof--- Admission by the executant in a prior suit, non-challenging of---Effect---Suit of the plaintiff / respondent was concurrently decreed on the basis that agreement-to-sell was admitted by the defendant (appellant / vendor) in a prior suit by recording his statement (statement-in-question)---Validity---Appellant never assailed the proceedings and the statement-in-question by initiating appropriate proceedings rather denied the same in an oblique manner while filing written statement in the suit instituted by the respondent from which the present second appeal had emanated, which could not denude the earlier proceedings of its genuineness and/or existence unless the same was held to be fraudulent by the said Court---Proceedings carried out in prior suit particularly statement-in-question still held the field and existed in judicial record---In such situation, it was for the Court to look into peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and also the conduct of the parties and their credibility while appreciating the evidence available on record---Both the Courts below had correctly appreciated the controversy while decreeing the suit of the respondent---Regul ar second appeal, being merit-less, was dismissed. Mian Mumtaz Ahmad Zahid for Appellant. Muhammad Khalid Mehmood Ayyaz for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd January, 2024.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S. 12---Intra Court Appeal---Suit for declaration and injunction---Rented premises---Non-deposit of rent by tenant due to change to property---Necessary repairs of premises---Procedure---Appellant / plaintiff was tenant in suit property and had stopped paying rent due to damage to the premises---Judge in Chambers of High Court directed appellant / plaintiff to deposit rent in Court---Validity---Subject matter of suit related to outstanding rent to be paid through cheques and that was it---Rent could have been paid through other modes however the subject was outstanding rent---Issue of repair of premises has been encompassed in S. 12 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and gives responsibility to landlord to make necessary repairs other than structural alteration to the premises---On failure of such obligations, issue can be raised before Rent Controller by tenant by moving an application---Rent Controller may direct landlord, after an inquiry, as required and deemed necessary by Rent Controller---If Rent Controller thinks necessary that such repairs may be made by tenant, only then the cost may be deducted from rent which is payable by tenant and not otherwise---Rent of the premises cannot be withheld unless order as required under S. 12 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was passed directing landlord to carry-out repairs and the amount as adjudged, and only then tenant could be permitted to withhold the amount subject to the condition that such amount as adjudged was actually spent---Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court---Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Haider Waheed and Aadil Channa for Appellant. Ovais Ali Shah and Jahanzeb Balouch for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing: 23rd January, 2024.