Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXIII, R. 3 & O. VII, R. 11---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell--- Compromise--- Scope--- Parties reached at compromise during pendency of suit---Plaint was rejected on the ground that plaintiff was not in possession of suit property and he had not prayed for recovery of possession as consequential relief; therefore, the suit was not maintainable--- Validity--- Parties had reached a compromise during pendency of suit---Defendants had conceded that compromise had been voluntarily made by the parties and they had no objection if suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff---Suit could be adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise to the satisfaction of court---Where defendant had satisfied the plaintiff with regard to whole or any part of the subject matter of suit, court should order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction (to be recorded) and should pass decree in accordance therewith---Making a prayer for possession in a suit for specific performance was not necessary---Relief by way of delivery of possession in a suit for specific performance would spring out of contract for sale and would be incidental to main relief of specific performance granted in the suit---Both the courts below had committed illegality in exercise of jurisdiction and wrongly rejected the plaint---Impugned s and decrees passed by both the courts below were set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed in terms of compromise---Revision was accepted, in circumstances. Rahim K. Sheikh v. United Bank Limited 1998 SCMR 1504; M/s Arokey Limited and others v. Munir Ahmed Mughal and 3 others PLD 1982 SC 204 and Khadim Hussain and 2 others v. Waris Ali and another 2005 CLC 1144 rel. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD, JUSTICE:----------- Briefly facts of the case are that a suit for specific performance of an agreement was filed by the petitioner against Riaz Ahmed/ respondent No.1 and Muhammad Asghar, predecessor of respondents Nos.2 to 7 pleading that parties have entered into an agreement to sell for a consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- (One Million)…

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