Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 625 2021 SLD 625 2021 SCMR 483
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 1120 of 2009, decided on 7-12-2020, Date of hearing: 7-12-2020. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 05.06.2008 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in R.F.A. No. 72 of 1998)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Malik Javed Iqbal Wains, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Abdur Rashid Awan, Advocate Supreme Court

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH CHAIRMAN

VS

RANA MUNAWAR KHAN

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,54

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Allotment letter, interpretation of---Allotment of plot on installments---Installments delayed by purchaser due to non-removal of high-tension wires from the plot by Capital Development Authority (CDA)---Installments were re-scheduled on orders of the Federal Ombudsperson---Delayed payment charges were imposed on purchaser by CDA once all installments were paid---Plea of purchaser/respondent that he did not pay the installments within time as according to clause 6 of the lease agreement the possession of the plot free from all encumbrances and ready for construction was to be delivered to him within a period of one month i.e. on or before 14-01-1988 but the same was delivered on 27-02-1988 without removing high tension wires and electric poles, which were passing through all the plots of that area---Validity---Clause 6 of the lease agreement/allotment letter did not state that the CDA was bound to deliver the possession after removing of high tension wires etc.---However, it appears from the noting portion of the CDA that Town Planner-1 vide a memo had informed that an overhead electric line was encroaching the plots in the area but the same was removed and the possession was handed over to the respondent without any further encroachment---Such claim found force from the possession letter, wherein the respondent had himself admitted that there was no encroachment on his plot has himself signed the possession letter and certified that he had seen his plot and all its corners, there was no encroachment on his plot, and no service line was passing within his plot---Although possession was delivered to him late but the delay was only of 40 to 45 days had to pay the first installment by 01-03-1988 but despite the fact that possession was handed over to him on 27-02-1988, he did not pay the same---Appellant/CDA issued him a letter dated 08-04-1989 to make the payment but instead of complying, he filed a suit for permanent injunction, which prima facie shows that he wanted to avoid payment accrued towards him---Purpose of the respondent was to evade payment while buying…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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