Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 2998 2006 SLD 2998 2006 PLD 607
Sindh High Court
Second Appeal No. 11 and C.M.A. Nos. 562, 563 of 2005, decided on 3rd April, 2006
MUHAMMAD SADIQ LEGHARI, J
Shabbir Hussain Shigri for Appellant. Ghias-ud-Din Mirza for
Respondents

Mst. AFSAR SULTANA

VS

NIKHAT PERVEEN and others

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.12---Suit for specific performance of agreement---Original owner/predecessor-in-interest of vendors executed agreement of sale of suit house in favour of vendee---Terms of agreement showed that vendee paid certain amount to vendor and balance amount was to be paid by him within three months from date of agreement---Vendee paid certain amount after more than seven months instead of agreed period of three months and failed to pay remaining amount---Vendee, on death of original owner, filed suit for specific performance of contract against legal heirs of vendor/original owner---Suit was resisted by legal heirs of vendor mainly on the ground that vendee had not performed her part of contract as she failed to make payment of balance amount---Pending suit in the High Court, in its original side, an order was passed directing vendee to deposit balance amount in Court within two weeks, but vendee could not deposit the same even within extended time---Subsequently case was transferred to Civil Court and transferee civil Court dismissed suit holding that vendee had not been able. to establish that she was prepared to perform her part of contract---Appellate Court however, reversed findings of the Trial Court---Validity---Vendee had admitted non-payment of balance amount, which admission by itself was clear non-fulfilment of the condition of contract by vendee---Vendee had even not pleaded or proved that there was further agreement in respect of that payment---Legally party having defaulted in fulfilling its part of contract did not deserve the grant of its prayer for specific performance of contract---Decision impugned through appeal being illegal and wrong, principle of locus poenitentiae, would not protect it even it had been acted upon---Impugned decision being subject to appeal, fact that it had been acted upon, could not take away the legal right of appeal from the party competent to file same---Impugned decision of Appellate Court was set aside---Suit for specific performance of contract, was dismissed accordingly. Mst. Maqbool Begum and others reported in PLD 1982 SC 47 and Abdul Haque Indhar and others v. Province of Sindh…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492