| Case ID |
0fb6f24e-9fa6-4b6a-a60e-a127c3e7f127 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revision No. 107-D of 2001 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 09, 2020 |
| Hearing Date |
Sep 22, 2020 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court, presided over by Justice ASIM HAFEEZ, dismissed the Civil Revision No. 107-D of 2001. The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's suit for specific performance and declaration of invalidity against the mutation issued by the Cantonment Board, Multan. The decision reaffirmed that the petitioner lacked the right to enforce the contingent agreement to sell, as the condition of the defendants acquiring ownership rights was not fulfilled. Consequently, the Civil Revision was deemed without merit and consequently dismissed without any order as to costs. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case Civil Revision No. 107-D of 2001, adjudicated by the Lahore High Court on October 9, 2020, Justice Asim Hafeez delivered a decisive judgment affirming the dismissal of the petitioner's claim for specific performance and the declaration of invalidity against the mutation issued by the Cantonment Board, Multan. The petitioner, Muhammad Latif Khan, through his legal heirs, challenged the ownership recorded under Barkatullah through legal heirs and others. Central to the case were the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872, particularly Section 32, and the Specific Relief Act, 1877, Section 12, which govern contingent contracts and their enforceability. The court meticulously examined the agreement to sell, highlighting that the enforcement was contingent upon the defendants obtaining ownership rights, a condition that remained unmet. Despite the defendants acknowledging the agreement, they contested the breach of promise by asserting that ownership rights were not granted to them. The trial court had initially decreed in favor of the petitioner, but the appellate court reversed this decision, leading to the Civil Revision. The High Court's judgment emphasized that without the fulfillment of the contingent condition, the petitioner lacked the statutory right to enforce the contract. Additionally, the court referenced precedents such as Jameel Ahmed v. Saifuddin and Muhammad Anwar v. Muhammad Aslam to bolster its stance on the non-enforceability of contingent contracts when conditions are unmet. The decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding contractual integrity while ensuring that contingent obligations are honored only upon the occurrence of specified conditions. This case serves as a pivotal reference for future litigations involving contingent contracts, emphasizing the necessity of condition fulfillment for legal enforceability. Legal practitioners and scholars can glean insights into the nuanced interpretation of contract law and specific relief mechanisms from this comprehensive judgment. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Cantonment Board, Multan,
House No.1497,
Ward No.3,
Khatkana Road Bazar,
Multan Cantt
|
| Judges |
ASIM HAFEEZ, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Ch. Habib Ullah Nahang for Petitioners.,
Kanwar Intizar Muhammad Khan for Respondents.
|
| Petitioners |
MUHAMMAD LATIF KHAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS
|
| Respondents |
BARKATULLAH (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS
|
| Citations |
2021 SLD 885,
2021 CLC 657
|
| Other Citations |
Jameel Ahmed v. Saifuddin PLD 1994 SC 501,
Muhammad Anwar v. Muhammad Aslam and others 2012 SCMR 345 rel.
|
| Laws Involved |
Contract Act, 1872,
Specific Relief Act, 1877
|
| Sections |
32,
12
|