| Case ID |
08e85b9a-e770-4ea7-8c52-8aeeed75d6e3 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
C.R. No. 98-B of 2011 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 12, 2015 |
| Hearing Date |
Nov 12, 2015 |
| Decision |
The Peshawar High Court determined that the plaintiffs' request for specific performance of the sale agreement was denied due to lack of proper notice regarding the payment of the balance. The court emphasized that time is generally not considered the essence of contracts involving immovable property unless explicitly stated or agreed upon. The defendants were required to deposit the outstanding amount along with due rent; failure to do so would result in their suit being dismissed. This case reaffirms the principles surrounding specific performance, emphasizing the necessity of notice and the conditions under which time may be considered essential in property agreements. |
| Summary |
In the case before the Peshawar High Court, the core issue revolved around a dispute regarding the specific performance of a sale agreement and redemption of mortgage. The plaintiffs sought specific performance of an agreement dated February 20, 2007, while the defendants sought a mortgage redemption. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the appellate court reversed this decision, leading to the current revisions. The court analyzed the essential nature of time in the context of immovable property contracts, reiterating that time is not typically an essence unless clearly stipulated by the parties involved. The judgment highlighted the legal implications of failing to give notice regarding payment obligations and the significance of adhering to contractual terms. The rulings referenced previous case law, emphasizing the importance of notice in contractual agreements and the rights of parties in real estate transactions. Overall, this case serves as a critical reference for understanding specific performance in property law, the role of notice, and the interpretation of time as an essence in contracts. |
| Court |
Peshawar High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
IKRAMULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Rustam Khan Kundi,
Sardar Naeem Khan
|
| Petitioners |
3 others,
GUL RASHEED KHAN
|
| Respondents |
3 others,
ISRAR KHAN
|
| Citations |
2016 SLD 3721,
2016 YLR 1229
|
| Other Citations |
Seth Essabhoy v. Saboor Ahmad PLD 1972 SC 39,
Kaniz Fatima and another v. Sh. Muhammad Sohail and 7 others 2003 CLC 923,
Anjuman-e-Islamia, Sialkot v. Haji Muhammad Younas and 3 others PLD 1997 Lah. 153
|
| Laws Involved |
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877),
Contract Act (IX of 1872),
Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)
|
| Sections |
55,
53-A,
60
|