| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 626 2013 SLD 626 2013 CLC 76 |
Islamabad High Court
Civil Revision No.340 of 2003, heard on 22-12-2011
IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, C.J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Revision No.340 of 2003, heard on 22-12-2011
IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, C.J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD MASUD KHAN
VS
MUHAMMAD NEROZE KHAN and 3 others
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42,54
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42,54
Law: Contract Act, 1872
Section: 62
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 42 & 54---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.62---Suit for declaration and injunction---Agreement to sell and sale-deed---Novation of contract---Plaintiffs relying on agreement to sell claimed their right over suit property and asserted that sale-deed referred by defendants was registered in furtherance of agreement to sell in question---Validity---Agreement to sell in question was executed between vendor and plaintiffs, whereas registered sale-deed was executed between vendor and defendants---Purchasers mentioned in agreement to sell and registered sale-deed were different persons except plaintiffs---Sale-deed, nowhere mentioned that the same was executed in furtherance or in consequence of agreement in question, therefore, registered sale-deed in question was not outcome of the agreement---Even if sale-deed in question was executed in pursuance of sale agreement, then too according to section 62 of Contract Act, 1872, after execution of registered sale-deed, the same did not require its performance and sale agreement had no binding effect and plaintiff could not ask for any relief---Findings of two Courts below did not suffer from jurisdictional defect nor the same were result of misreading and non-reading of evidence and did not call for interference---Plaintiffs failed to point out any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the s of the courts below warranting interference by High Court in its revisional jurisdiction---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. PLD 1956 (W.P.) Lah. 934; PLD 1987 SC (AJ&K) 93; PLD 1982 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 33 and 1994 CLC 2272 ref. Aurangzeb through legal heirs and others v. Muhammad Jaffar and another 2007 SCMR 236 rel. Syed Asghar Hussain Sabzwari for Petitioner. Gul Hussain Jadoon for Respondent No.1. Date of hearing: 22nd December, 2011. JUDGMENT IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, C.J.--- Through the instant revision petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree dated 11-3-2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad whereby, he while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants (including the present petitioner), upheld the…
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