Specific performance | The High Court, while restoring the trial court's decision to dismiss the case in the compliance allocation claim, held that the appellate court disagreed with the trial court's ruling on misinterpretation of evidence, even though it had no solid basis, and it O. XLI, R.31 of the Civil Code passed the judgment without considering the basis of the points. 2024 CLC 655
 |
| The High Court, while restoring the trial court's decision to dismiss the case in the compliance allocation claim, held that the appellate court disagreed with the trial court's ruling on misinterpretation of evidence, even though it had no solid basis, and it O. XLI, R.31 of the Civil Code passed the judgment without considering the basis of the points. 2024 CLC 655 |
2024 CLC 655
اس کیس میں مدعی نے دعویٰ کیا کہ مدعا علیہ نے اپنے مکان کے بیچنے کا معاہدہ کیا تھا، لیکن ٹرائل کورٹ نے یہ دعویٰ مسترد کر دیا۔ تاہم، زیریں اپیلٹ کورٹ نے مدعی کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا۔ ہائی کورٹ نے یہ فیصلہ اس بنیاد پر کالعدم قرار دیا کہ زیریں اپیلٹ کورٹ نے شواہد کی درست تشخیص کیے بغیر فیصلہ سنایا تھا اور نکات پر بحث کیے بغیر ٹرائل کورٹ کے فیصلے سے اختلاف کیا تھا۔
زیریں اپیلٹ کورٹ کا فیصلہ سپریم کورٹ کے طے شدہ اصولوں کی خلاف ورزی اور عدالتی غور و فکر کے بغیر دیا گیا تھا۔ نتیجتاً، دوسری اپیل منظور کر لی گئی۔
---Judgments at variance---Scope---
2024 CLC 655
–S. 12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100, Ο.ΧΧ, R.5 & O.XLI, R. 31---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Second appeal---Misreading and non-reading of evidence---Points for consideration in judgment---Judgments at variance---Scope---Respondent / plaintiff claimed that appellant / defendant executed agreement to sell a house owned by him---Suit was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same in favour of respondent / plaintiff---Validity---Lower Appellate Court had given its judgment without appraisal of evidence, and it was also contrary to record---Finding of Lower Appellate Court in its judgment about "admission" regarding payment of substantial amount of sale consideration, was a complete misreading of evidence and was illegal---If Lower Appellate Court was to disagree with findings of Trial Court, which handed down its judgment while discussing issues framed in accordance with O. XX, R. 5, C.P.C., then Lower Appellate Court [Court of Final Facts], had to do issue-wise discussion, which had not been done---At least points for consideration as required under O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C. should have been framed for giving decision accordingly---Only a formal point for determination was framed that whether judgment of Trial Court called for interference or not---High Court set aside the judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court as it was in violation of principle settled by Supreme Court and was given in a slip shod manner, _ without application of judicial mind, that included, element of visible fairness in a decision---Second Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. [Sindh]
Comments
Post a Comment