| Case ID |
440f8576-938d-4026-b172-9cfa16287113 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
W.P. No. 71147 of 2022 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 14, 2022 |
| Hearing Date |
Nov 14, 2022 |
| Decision |
Through this constitutional petition, Muhammad Rafique, the petitioner, has challenged the orders dated 28.09.2022 and 02.11.2022 issued by the lower courts concerning his suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 23.07.2020. The petitioner sought interim relief based on the agreement and alleged part payment of the sale consideration. However, the court found that the agreement to sell was not properly stamped and lacked evidentiary value. Additionally, the petitioner failed to conclusively demonstrate the part payment and the transfer of funds without supporting documentation. The court noted the principle of lis pendens and determined that the conditions for granting a temporary injunction, such as a prima-facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, were not met. Relying on precedents like 2004 SCMR 111 and 2018 MLD 959, the court upheld the dismissal of the petition, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence and proper legal substantiation before granting such relief. Consequently, the constitutional petition filed by Muhammad Rafique was dismissed in limine. |
| Summary |
The Lahore High Court, in W.P. No. 71147 of 2022, adjudicated a constitutional petition filed by Muhammad Rafique on November 14, 2022. The petitioner challenged the orders dated September 28, 2022, and November 2, 2022, from the lower courts regarding his suit for the specific performance of an agreement to sell dated July 23, 2020. The petition sought interim relief, arguing possession based on an agreement to sell and alleging unfair transfer of property by Respondent No. 3, Mst. Safia Bibi, from Respondent No. 4, Muhammad Sharif, his real brother. The petitioner claimed to have paid a substantial part of the sale consideration and obtained possession of the property. Despite presenting a photocopy of the agreement and a concession statement from Respondent No. 4, the court found the agreement lacked proper evidentiary value as it was not stamped and required further verification. The respondent's mutation records and coinciding statements suggested potential collusion, undermining the prima-facie case presented by the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to demonstrate how the substantial part payment was made without proper documentation, and the required elements for granting a temporary injunction were not satisfied. The court relied on precedents such as 2004 SCMR 111 and 2018 MLD 959 to affirm the dismissal of the petition. Ultimately, the Lahore High Court dismissed the constitutional petition, upholding the lower courts' decisions and emphasizing the necessity for thorough evidence and legal substantiation in granting interim relief and specific performance of contractual obligations. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Respondent No. 3/Mst. Safia Bibi,
Respondent No. 4/Muhammad Sharif
|
| Judges |
Muzamil Akhtar Shabir, J.
|
| Lawyers |
Ch. Akbar Ali Tahir
|
| Petitioners |
Muhammad Rafique
|
| Respondents |
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, JHANG etc.
|
| Citations |
2023 SLD 6951,
2023 PLJ 256
|
| Other Citations |
2004 SCMR 111,
2018 MLD 959
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Specific Relief Act, 1877
|
| Sections |
1,
2,
12
|