' M. BILAL KHAN, J.-Tariq Hussain son of Muhammad Sharif , the petitioner, by filing the instant petition seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.LR No-276, dated 28-12-2005, registered at Police Station Factory Area, Sargodha for offences under sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 452, 147, 149 P.P.C at the instance of Mst. Shahida Bibi, wife of the petitioner, the alleged victim of assault,
2. Precisely the facts giving rise to this bail application were that Mst. Shahida Bibi, the complainant, got registered the aforesaid F.LR against Abdul Sattar, Jabbar Khan, Nazir, Shahzad, Sardar Khan, Naseer, Usman, Yasir, Mst,. Mehtab, Mst. Ishrat, Mst. Nusrat, Mst. Sabrina and Mst. Reema, alleging therein that they while carrying iron rods trespassed into her house and entered the room: Abdul Sattar raised a Lalkara that .a lesson be taught for getting possession of the said house, whereupon Muhammad Nazir inflicted an iron road blow on her head; the second and third iron rod blows were delivered by Usman and Jabbar Khan, which landed on her right elbow and left eye respectively; thereafter Shahzad caused an iron rod injury below the left eye of her husband Tariq (the petitioner): then Sardar inflicted an injury on the left arm of Mst. Tahira Bibi, her daughter. It has also been alleged that during the incident the wearing apparel of the complainant had been torn off and she became naked. During the course of investigation, Abdul Jabbar accused got recorded a cross-version on the basis of Medico-legal Report attached with this petition as Annex 'C' against the petitioner. [1]
3. The petitioner apprehending his arrest had approached the learned Court of Session at Sargodha for grant of pre-arrest bail, but his plea had been turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha vide order dated 28-1-2006. Hence, the instant petition.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it has been observed that the petitioner is a brother-in-law of Jabbar Khan, the complainant in the cross-version. All the accused mentioned in the F.I.R, which had been recorded under sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 452, 147, 149 P.P.C have since been released on bail by the learned trial Court. Mst. Shahida Bibi wife of the petitioner has appeared in person. She is real sister of Jabbar Khan, complainant in the cross-version. She has submitted that it was a matrimonial dispute, which had degenerated into a sudden fight and that the injuries allegedly suffered by Jabbar Khan were caused with a friendly hand in order to cancel out the effect of the F.I.R, which had been lodged by her. I am not inclined to go into the details of the case, suffice it to say that the parties are closely related and the accused persons nominated in the F.I.R are on bail, as such at this juncture it would not serve any useful purpose to send the petitioner behind the bars. His case is one of further inquiry inasmuch as it is yet to be determined as to who is the aggressor.
2. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 2-2-2006 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
2007 Y-LR 3147 [Lahore] Before Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J SAID RASOOL and others-Petitioners versus SHAMSHAD ALI and others-Respondents Civil Revision No,2444-D of 1996, decided on 26th March, 2007.
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)- -S. 12-Suit for specific performance of agreement-Contentions of plaintiffs were that defendants had agreed to sell suit land for a consideration; that entire amount was paid whereupon agreement was executed and possession of suit land was delivered to plaintiff and that defendants had refused to perform their part of contract-Plaintiffs had prayed for decree for specific performance of agreement-Defendants in their written statement denied having entered into any agreement with plaintiffs or to have received any money from them- Delivery of possession was also denied- Trial Court and Appellate Court had concurrently dismissed the suit*- Validity- None of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff had stated that defendants had put their thumb-impression on alleged agreement of sale or receipt in his presence-Courts below had very correctly observed that in the first instance no evidence of execution of documents by defendants was available within the meaning of law or even in fact; that no evidence was on record to the effect that documents were read over to defendants including an old and "Parda Nasheen " lady- Concurrent findings of the courts below could not be interfered with, in circumstances, [pp. 3147, 3148] A, B & C Muhammad Sharif Chauhan for Petitioner.
Nemo for the Respondent.
' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- On 18-9-1989, the petitioners filed a suit against the respondent. In the plaint, it was stated that the suit-land, mentioned in the plaint was owned by the respondents as detailed in para-1 thereof. They agreed to sell the suit-land to the petitioners for a consideration of Rs,32,000. The entire amount was paid .Whereupon agreement dated 24-8-1989 was executed and possession was delivered. The respondents have now refused to perform their part of contract. A decree for specific performance of agreement was prayed for. The respondents in their written statement denied having entered into any agreement with the petitioner or to have received any money from them. Delivery of possession was also denied. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 1-6-1992. Learned ADJ., Kaloor Kot dismissed the first appeal on 22-2-1995.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the evidence on record has been misread and that the learned Courts below have wrongly applied the test prescribed for transaction entered into by illiterate : Parda Nasheen" ladies to the documents in question.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records with the assistance of the learned counsel. Copy of the agreement dated 24-8-1989 is Ex.P.l while the receipt is Ex.P.2. The agreement purports to bear thumb-impression of the three respondents. It is attested by Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Ibrahim, Ghulam Yasin and Fateh Muhammad while the receipt purports to bear thumb- impression of Muhammad Tufail and. The'Signatures of Shamshad Ali, respondent and is attested by said Muhammad Amin, Ghulam Yasin and Mehboob. Muhammad Amin appeared as P.W.2 while Fateh Muhammad appeared as P.W.3. None of these two witnesses have sated that any of the respondents put their thumb impression on the agreement Exh.P-1 or the receipt Ex.P-2 in his presence. They simply stated hat they are the witnesses and their thumb impression are present on the documents. Similar is the case with Mehboob Ahmad son of Allah Yar, P.W.4 who is witness of Exh.Pr2. P.W.5 is Abdul Jabbar, a scribe, who has given a very strange statement. According to him, the documents Ex.P-1 and Exh. P-2 were written by Murhtaz Shah but are signed and stamped by him. As to the reason for the said rather extraordinary procedure, there is no explanation. None of these documents have been entered into any register.
4. Learned Courts below have very correctly observed that in the first instance there is no evidence of execution of the documents by the respondents within the meaning of law or even in fact and in the second there is no evidence that the documents were read over to the respondents including an old and admittedly "Parda Nasheen"' lady, particularly so when P.W.2 has stated that the lady came long after the documents have been scribed and she came of herself to the Courts and managed to find the witnesses there. C.R. Accordingly is dismissed in limine.