| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 1793 2020 SLD 1793 2020 CLC 1209 |
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No. 132 of 2011, heard on 27-02-2020
MIRZA VIQAS RAUF, JUSTICE
Naveed Shahryar for Appellant. Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat for
Respondent.
Regular Second Appeal No. 132 of 2011, heard on 27-02-2020
MIRZA VIQAS RAUF, JUSTICE
Naveed Shahryar for Appellant. Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat for
Respondent.
IJAZ AHMAD KHAN
VS
EDEN DEVELOPERS (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHAIRMAN MUHAMMAD AMJAD
Law: Specific Relief (Punjab Amendment) (Repeal) Ordinance, 1983
Section: 12,22
Law: Contract, Act, 1872
Section: 55
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.12 & 22---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 55---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Time as an essence of contract---Determination of---Procedure---Document produced as "mark" by the party---Evidentiary value---Plaintiff filed suit wherein defendant submitted that remaining sale consideration had not been paid within stipulated period and agreement had been cancelled as time was an essence of contract---Trial Court decreed the suit but Appellate Court dismissed the same---Validity---Time was made essence with the consent of the parties and plaintiff was bound to pay installments as per schedule annexed with the agreement---Plaintiff had not agitated alleged non-performance of the agreement on the part of defendant before any forum---Defendant issued notices to the plaintiff for payment of monthly installments but he had committed default---Even notice for cancellation of agreement was issued to the plaintiff with the direction to pay outstanding amount but he did not pay monthly installments---Amount deposited on behalf of plaintiff had been refunded to him without any objection---Plaintiff was estopped to institute the present suit---None of the party to an agreement could justify his lapse while blaming the other for non-performance of his part---Plaintiff had produced documents as "mark" to prove that defendant had failed to carry out necessary development in terms of agreement---Law did not recognize any such practice and if a document was not produced and proved in accordance with law then it could not be treated as admissible evidence---Time might not be an essence in every agreement and it could be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case---Agreement to sell did not confer any right to the proposed vendee in the property---Agreement to sell did equip the vendee with a right to file a suit for specific performance for enforcement of the same---Plaintiff was bound to establish his alleged right in the suit property in the light of alleged agreement to sell by leading cogent and convincing evidence---Relief of specific performance was discretionary and it would depend upon…
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