| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 106 2015 SLD 106 2015 PLD 75 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 454 of 2007, heard on 24th May, 2013. DATE of hearing: 24th May, 2013
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J
Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioner. Arshad Malik Awan for
Respondent.
Civil Revision No. 454 of 2007, heard on 24th May, 2013. DATE of hearing: 24th May, 2013
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J
Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioner. Arshad Malik Awan for
Respondent.
FARYAD ALI
VS
REHMAT ALI
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12
Law: Contract Act, 1872
Section: 55
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.55---Suit for specific performance of contract---Immovable property---Time essence of contract---Scope---Suit filed by plaintiff was decreed in his favour--- Appellant court accepted the appeal filed by defendant and set aside the decree of Trial Court---Plaintiff had given notice to defendant after expiry of the last date of performance-Last date of performance, so given, was not the essence of contract---Ordinarily in a suit for specific performance of immoveable property time was not essence of the contract except when specifically mentioned in the contract---Defendant himself had received the money and extended the period and had not given any notice for termination of the contract on the basis that the time was essence of the contract---Plaintiff, however, could not perform his part of the contract---Without notice by the defendant time could not be taken as essence of the contract---Appellant court fell in error while holding that the last date for extending the contract was essence of the contract---Revision petition was accepted. JUDGMENT AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J, Through this revision petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 7-12-2006, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby appeal filed by the respondent/defendant was accepted and the judgment and decree dated 8-11-2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, Lahore, decreeing the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff for specific performance, was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19-12-1993, petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 14-2-1992. Written statement was filed wherein objection was that the contract was not enforceable in law as the plaintiff had failed to pay full price of the land by the time fixed in the agreement. The learned trial Court framed the issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence. After closure of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 8-11-2005, decreed 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