| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 2235 2015 SLD 2235 2015 MLD 1251 |
Sindh High Court
Hussain Bohra for Respondent No. 3., DATE of hearing: 22nd March, 2013., H.C.A. No. 53 of 2010, decided on 2nd April, 2014.
MUSHIR ALAM, C.J. AND SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J
Zeeshan Adhi for Appellant. Kh. Shamsul Islam for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Hussain Bohra for
Respondent No. 3. Asad Rizvi for
Respondents Nos. 7 and 8.
Hussain Bohra for Respondent No. 3., DATE of hearing: 22nd March, 2013., H.C.A. No. 53 of 2010, decided on 2nd April, 2014.
MUSHIR ALAM, C.J. AND SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J
Zeeshan Adhi for Appellant. Kh. Shamsul Islam for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Hussain Bohra for
Respondent No. 3. Asad Rizvi for
Respondents Nos. 7 and 8.
DEWAN MUSHTAQ MOTOR CO. (PVT.) LTD.
VS
UMAIR BIN ZAHID and 7 others
Law:
Section:
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Suit for specific performance---Interim relief, grant of---Scope---Whether relief granted to plaintiff in a suit for specific performance was interim or final relief---Booking agreement dated 14-4-2008 between plaintiffs and defendant-company for purchase of a vehicle---Under the said agreement defendant-company was to deliver the vehicle to plaintiffs within 90 to 120 days ("Period of delivery")---Customs duty on vehicle in question was increased on 2-9-2008---Defendant-company refused to deliver the vehicle unless plaintiffs paid the increase in price of vehicle on account of increase in customs duty---Plaintiffs refused to pay the newly imposed duty and filed a suit for specific performance contending that they were not bound to pay the increased duty as according to the agreement vehicle ought to have been delivered within the "period of delivery" (i.e. on or before 20-8-2008), therefore they were not liable to pay the newly imposed duty on 2-9-2008---Defendant-company contended that after vehicle had been booked, plaintiffs changed their selection of model for the vehicle on 6-6-2008, thus period of delivery was to be counted from 6-6-2008---Single Judge of High Court by way of interim relief directed defendant-company to hand over possession of vehicle to the plaintiffs---Plea of defendant-company was that direction to hand over vehicle to plaintiffs amounted to final relief---Validity---Questions to be decided in the suit after recording of evidence were as to what model of vehicle was initially booked; whether booking was made on 14-4-2008 or at any other date, and whether plaintiffs were liable to pay the increase in price of vehicle on account of increase in customs duty---Direction by Single Judge of High Court to hand over delivery of vehicle to plaintiffs was not final relief as the main relief claimed by plaintiffs was that they were not liable to pay the increased customs duty as the same was increased after the "period of delivery"---Main relief with regard to increase in price of vehicle due to increased customs duty was yet to be decided, therefore, impugned order of Single Judge of High Court did…
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