| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 665 2014 SLD 665 2014 MLD 1544 |
Peshawar High Court
Civ. Rev. No. 100-D of 2013, decision & hearing Dated: 19-08-2013.
ABDUL LATIF KHAN, JUSTICE
Burhan Latif Khan Khaisori (sic) for Petitioner. Muhammad Yousaf Khan for
Respondents.
Civ. Rev. No. 100-D of 2013, decision & hearing Dated: 19-08-2013.
ABDUL LATIF KHAN, JUSTICE
Burhan Latif Khan Khaisori (sic) for Petitioner. Muhammad Yousaf Khan for
Respondents.
DR. HAZRAT KHAN
VS
HUSSAIN JAN AND OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.148---Suit for specific performance of contract by the petitioner---Non-deposit of balance consideration amount by the petitioner on the ground of being huge amount---Extension in time---Refusal of---Dismissal of suit---Appellate Court, in the present case, had passed the and decree with the condition of dismissal of suit, in case of non-payment of the decretal amount within a period of one month---Contention of the petitioner was that as a huge amount was involved; time of one month granted by the Appellate Court for deposit of the amount was insufficient and had sought relief of payment of amount through bearable instalments and for extension in time---Validity---Points raised by the petitioner had no water, as there was no enactment for extension of time---Arrangement of huge amount would not be a valid ground for extension of time---Revision petition was partially allowed with a direction to deposit the decretal amount within a period of fifteen days and in case of failure of petitioner to make payment of the said amount within the extended time of fifteen days, the revision petition shall stand dismissed. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: ABDUL LATIF KHAN, JUSITCE:---.---- Brief and essential facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the respondents/defendants. The respondents/defendants appeared before the Court and submitted an application for deposit of Rs.9,36,40,000 in the Court. The application was contested by the petitioner/plaintiff by submitting replication. On 28-1-2013, the learned trial Court sent a local commission to the respondents/defendants for recording their joint statement which was recorded. After hearing the arguments over compromise, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff on 2-2-2013. 2. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 1-2-2013, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred an appeal. The learned Additional District Judge-II, D.I. Khan on 20-7-2013 delivered judgment and decree with the condition to the petitioner to deposit an amount of…
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