IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.528-L OF 2012 
(Against 
the 
judgment 
dated 
17.09.2009 of the Lahore High Court, 
Lahore passed in RSA No.58/2008) 
 
 
Muhammad Afzal (decd.) through L.Rs. etc. 
 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
Muhammad Bashir and another 
 
…Respondent(s) 
… 
For the appellant(s): 
Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
For respondent No.1: 
Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, ASC 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
20.11.2019 
… 
ORDER 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- The case of respondent No.1 in his 
suit for specific performance of contract was that the predecessor-in-
interest of the appellant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell with 
him with regard to his property comprising of 29 kanals. In this 
regard the appellant No.1 executed a sale agreement on 23.01.1992 
which admittedly was signed by him and on the same day a registered 
power of attorney was also executed in favour of his brother 
entrusting all the powers of sale and transfer etc. to him. At that time 
the property was mortgaged therefore could not be transferred and 
when the mortgage was redeemed on 18.01.1994, the respondent 
No.1 filed the suit for specific performance of the contract on 
30.04.1994. Both the documents were produced in evidence, however, 
out of the two attesting witnesses of the sale agreement only one 
Civil Appeal No.528-L of 2012 
-: 2 :-
appeared as witness. On the basis of the admission of the executant 
of both the documents the suit was decreed. The appeal filed by the 
appellants failed and so was their second appeal. Against the 
concurrent findings of the three courts below, leave was granted on 
the ground that though the execution of the sale agreement has been 
admitted but its contents have been denied. 
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the 
requirements of Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 were 
not met and only one attesting witness out of two was examined. He 
further submits that though the execution of sale agreement is 
admitted but its contents were denied, therefore the sale agreement 
ought not to have been allowed to be admitted in evidence and 
resultantly the suit ought to have been dismissed. In support of his 
contention, he has relied upon the judgments reported as Hafiz 
Tassaduq Hussain Vs. Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and 
others (PLD 2011 SC 241), Mt. Hira Bibi and others Vs. Ram Hari Lal 
and others (AIR 1925 Privy Council 203) and Sheik Kachu Vs. 
Muhammad Ali Mahmud (AIR 1927 Calutta 926).  
3. 
 
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondent relied 
upon a judgment of this Court reported as Abbas Ali Vs. Liaqat Ali 
and another (2013 SCMR 1600) wherein it has been held that the 
documents are required to be attested by two witnesses but where the 
executant admits the execution of the document, then in terms of 
Article 81 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, such document can 
be used against him though it was required by law to be attested. 
4. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
find that the sale agreement has been attested by two witnesses and 
Civil Appeal No.528-L of 2012 
-: 3 :-
the omission to produce one attesting witness is of no legal 
consequence in terms of Article 81 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 
1984. The said Article reads as under:- 
 
“81. Admission of execution by party to attested 
document.-- The admission of a party to an attesting 
document of its execution by himself shall be sufficient 
proof of its execution as against him, though it be a 
document required by law to be attested.” 
 
Article 81 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. The simple reading of Article 81 shows that where the 
execution of a document is admitted by the executant himself, the 
examination of attesting witnesses is not necessary. The case law 
cited by the appellants’ counsel has no application as Article 81 is 
attracted in this case. Furthermore, the execution of power of attorney 
has not been denied which also contains the power to sell. When sale 
agreement is considered in the light of the contents of the power of 
attorney, clearly both the documents depict that the sale transaction 
has taken place. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the 
concurrent findings of three courts below. This appeal is, therefore, 
dismissed. 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
20th of November, 2019 
Approved for reporting 
Waqas Naseer/* 
