| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 980 2022 SLD 980 2022 SCMR 1275 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 176 of 2016 and C.M.A. No. 9246 of 2015, decision Dated: 17-06-2022, hearing Date : 17-06-2022. (Against the judgment Dated 26.11.2015 passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, in C.R. 675 of 2001)
QAZI FAEZ ISA, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE
Mrs. Fakhar-un-Nisa Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court, Qari Abdul Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Sharif Janjua, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Zulfikar Khalid Maluka, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 176 of 2016 and C.M.A. No. 9246 of 2015, decision Dated: 17-06-2022, hearing Date : 17-06-2022. (Against the judgment Dated 26.11.2015 passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, in C.R. 675 of 2001)
QAZI FAEZ ISA, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE
Mrs. Fakhar-un-Nisa Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court, Qari Abdul Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Sharif Janjua, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Zulfikar Khalid Maluka, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN
VS
MUHAMMAD ASLAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.S
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 113
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 11
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12--- Specific performance of an agreement to sell--- Scope---Buyer/vendee who had not signed the agreement of sale was not disentitled from filing a suit seeking its specific performance. Muhammad Sattar v. Tariq Javaid 2017 SCMR 98 ref. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art. 113---Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell---Maintainability---Suit barred under the principle of res judicata and also filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation---In the present case, the appellant/vendee by his own showing had divested his purported interest in the said land (having statedly sold it to his brothers in 1973); he also did not array his brothers as parties in his suit filed in the year 1992, nor did so later---Brothers also did not come forward themselves to assert their purported rights of ownership in the said land---However, the respondent/vendor had arrayed the appellant/vendee and his brothers in his suit, which was decreed, and the unchallenged with regard to the said land constituted res judicata in terms of section 11 of the C.P.C.---Said unchallenged attained finality as neither the appellant nor his brothers challenged it was a party to respondent’s suit, and was also aware of the unchallenged , as it was exhibited in the appellant’s suit---As regards the point of limitation the appellant had filed the suit in the year 1992, seeking specific performance of a purported sale agreement dated 4th May 1966, that is, after a period of 26 years, which suit he then withdrew and filed the fresh suit in the year 1996, that is after 30 years---Suit seeking specific performance of a contract is required to be filed within three years, as per Article 113 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908---Suit filed by appellant was not maintainable in view of the principle of res judicata and for being filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation---Civil Judge and Appellate Court when decreeing the suit of the appellant did not consider the objections of the respondent regarding res judicata and…
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