Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12,21

Law: Contract, Act, 1872

Section: 55

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)----- -----Ss. 12 & 21 (d)-----Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 55-----Suit for specific performance of contract-----Time as essence of contract-----Scope-----Whether time was essence of contract had to be determined from the intention of the parties as gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case-----Mere mentioning of time in the contract did not necessarily lead to the conclusion that time was the essence of the contract-----Plaintiff, in a case when time was essence of the contract, had failed to perform his part of agreement up till the due date-----Agreement had become void and unenforceable-----Suit for specific performance was not maintainable-----Plaintiff had been rightly non-suited by the courts below in accordance with law-----No misreading, non-reading of evidence, perversity, factual or legal infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned s and decrees passed by the courts below-----Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Sandoz Limited and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1995 SCMR 1431 rel. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: ABDUL SATTAR ASGHAR, JUSTICE:----------- This regular second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Narowal whereby appellant's suit for specific performance was dismissed. It also assails the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2014 passed by the learned District Judge Narowal whereby appellant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge was also dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned courts below erred in law while maintaining that time was essence of the contract between the parties and that the appellant has failed to perform his part of the agreement within the stipulated period; that the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned courts below being contrary to law are untenable and liable to set aside. 3. Arguments heard. Record perused. 4. By virtue of the alleged agreement to sell dated 26.06.2009 (Exh.P.1) the appellant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and Cheque No.6380057 dated 01.07.2009 worth…

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