| Case ID |
5cafc46a-1860-4131-8c3d-b0e1c0987fcb |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Petition No. 852 of 2020 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 10, 2020 |
| Hearing Date |
Sep 10, 2020 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the petition for leave to appeal, converting it into an appeal, and ultimately decided in favor of the petitioners. The court emphasized that specific performance is a discretionary relief, and the courts are not bound to grant such relief mechanically. The decision highlighted the importance of demonstrating readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations and underscored that the vendee must plead and prove their capacity to meet the financial obligations under the agreement. The court also noted that the time is generally not of the essence in contracts involving immoveable property, but circumstances may dictate otherwise. The judgment elaborated on the rights of the vendor to forfeit earnest money if the vendee fails to comply with the terms of the agreement. |
| Summary |
In the case of Civil Petition No. 852 of 2020, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed issues surrounding specific performance of contracts, focusing on the obligations of both vendors and vendees under the Specific Relief Act, 1877, the Contract Act, 1872, and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court elaborated on the discretionary nature of specific performance, asserting that it is not an automatic entitlement but rather contingent upon the parties' actions and intentions. The judgment highlighted the necessity for the vendee to demonstrate readiness and willingness to fulfill their contractual obligations, including the ability to pay the balance sale consideration within the agreed timeframe. The ruling also clarified that while the principle of time not being of the essence generally applies to immoveable property transactions, specific circumstances can alter this presumption. The court’s decision to allow the appeal underscored the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the potential consequences of non-compliance, including forfeiture of the earnest money paid. This case serves as a crucial reference point for future interpretations of contractual obligations in real estate transactions, emphasizing the need for clear communication and adherence to agreed terms. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Mushir Alam, Justice,
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmad, Justice
|
| Lawyers |
Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners,
Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1
|
| Petitioners |
Others,
Muhammad Jamil
|
| Respondents |
Muhammad Arif
|
| Citations |
2021 SLD 1415,
2021 SCMR 1108
|
| Other Citations |
Mst. Samina Riffat v. Rohail Asghar and others 2021 SCMR 7,
Abdul Hamid v. Abbas Bhai Abdul Hussain PLD 1959 (W.P.) Karachi 629,
Hamood Mahmood v. Shabana Ishaq 2017 SCMR 2023,
Kwait National Real Estate Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Educational Excellence Ltd. 2020 SCMR 171,
Pushparani S. Sundaram and others v. Pauline Manomani James (deceased) and others (2002) 9 SCC 582,
Saradamani Kandappan and others v. S. Rajalakshmi and others (2011) 12 SCC 18 Paragraph 31,
C.S. Venkatesh v. A.S.C. Murthy D. through LRs. AIR 2020 SC 930 = 2020 (3) SCC 280
|
| Laws Involved |
Specific Relief Act, 1877,
Contract Act, 1872,
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
|
| Sections |
22,
12,
52,
51,
54
|