| Case ID |
2618c69e-6962-498f-811e-f823bebbe682 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
R.F.A. No. 128 of 2011 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 08, 2013 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 08, 2013 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 27-1-2011 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasur. The court decreed the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant, subject to the deposit of the balance amount of Rs. 84,85,000 with the trial court by 8-11-2013. If the appellant failed to deposit the amount, the suit would be presumed to have been dismissed. The court found that the trial court's findings regarding time being the essence of the contract were not sustainable under the law, as the intention of the parties regarding time as essence was not clearly expressed in the contract. Therefore, the appeal was accepted with costs throughout. |
| Summary |
In the case of R.F.A. No. 128 of 2011, the Lahore High Court addressed issues related to specific performance of a contract under the Contract Act, 1872 and the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The appeal was filed by the plaintiff Taj Deen against the dismissal of his suit for specific performance by the Senior Civil Judge, Kasur. The main contention revolved around whether time was of the essence in the contract to transfer immovable property. The trial court had ruled that the plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract, thereby forfeiting his advance money. However, the High Court found that the trial court's judgment was not substantiated by the evidence presented, as there was no explicit mention in the contract that time was of the essence. The High Court emphasized that for time to be deemed essential, the intention of both parties must be clear from the contract itself. The court also noted that the defendants failed to produce adequate evidence regarding their presence before the Sub-Registrar on the maturity date of the agreement. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's findings and decreeing the suit for specific performance, conditional upon the plaintiff depositing the remaining consideration amount in a timely manner. This case underscores the importance of clarity in contractual terms and the necessity of proper evidence in legal proceedings regarding specific performance. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Amin-ud-Din Khan, Justice,
Abid Aziz Sheikh, Justice
|
| Lawyers |
Muhammad Javed Iqbal Qureshi for Appellant,
Ch. Abdul Waheed for Respondents
|
| Petitioners |
Taj Deen
|
| Respondents |
Others,
Muhammad Tufail
|
| Citations |
2015 SLD 1017,
2015 YLR 2562
|
| Other Citations |
Mst. Mehmooda Begum v. Syed Hassan Sajjad and 2 others 2004 YLR 845,
Muhammad Hussain and others v. Dr. Zahoor Alam 2010 SCMR 286,
Akbar Khan v. Muhammad Din and 2 others 2011 YLR 140,
Messrs Pioneer Housing Society (Pvt.) Limited v. Messrs Babar and Company 1999 PLD 193,
Mst. Batul and others v. Mst. Razia Fazal and others 2005 SCMR 544,
Mehboob Alam v. Muhammad Iqbal 2010 CLC 982,
Muhammad Anwar and 8 others v. Bahan and another 2000 YLR 378,
Malik Tanveer Ali and another v. Sardar Ali Imam and 2 others 2010 YLR 1799,
Muhammad Yaqoob and others v. Hakim Ali and others 2004 SCMR 584,
Muhammad Ramzan v. Abdullah and others 2000 YLR 398,
Abdul Hamid v. Abbas Bhai-Abdul Hussain Sodawater Wala PLD 1962 SC 1,
Zaheer Ahmad and another v. Abdul Aziz and others 1983 SCMR 559,
Bashir Ahmad and 4 others v. Muhammad Ramzan and another 1988 CLC 1600,
Muhammad Nawaz Khan and another v. Mst. Farrah Naz PLD 1999 Lah. 238,
Ghulam Nabi and others v. Seth Muhammad Yaqub and others PLD 1983 SC 344,
ISSO and another v. Muhammad Ismail and 2 others 1992 MLD 1787
|
| Laws Involved |
Contract Act, 1872,
Specific Relief Act, 1877
|
| Sections |
55,
12
|