| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 55 2021 SLD 55 2021 SCMR 7 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.M.A. No. 4053/2018 in C.A. 637/2018 and C.A. 637/2018, decision Dated: 4th May, 2020, hearing Date : 4th May, 2020. (On appeal from the judgment Dated 13.2.2018 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in R.F.A. No. 166 of 2013)
MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI, JUSTICE
Haroon Irshad Janjua, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Applicants. Junaid Iftikhar Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 1. Ch. Riasat Ali Gondal, Advocate
C.M.A. No. 4053/2018 in C.A. 637/2018 and C.A. 637/2018, decision Dated: 4th May, 2020, hearing Date : 4th May, 2020. (On appeal from the judgment Dated 13.2.2018 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in R.F.A. No. 166 of 2013)
MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI, JUSTICE
Haroon Irshad Janjua, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Applicants. Junaid Iftikhar Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 1. Ch. Riasat Ali Gondal, Advocate
MST. SAMINA RIFFAT AND OTHERS
VS
ROHAIL ASGHAR AND OTHERS.
Law: Contract, Act, 1872
Section: 51
Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section: 54
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12
(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 51---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 54---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Agreement to sell immoveable property---Failure to pay balance consideration within the time stipulated in the agreement---Forfeiture of earnest money---Scope---To avoid making payment of balance sale consideration the vendee could not import or press any condition extraneous to the conscious bargain struck between the parties---In cases arising out of sale of immovable property, a vendee seeking specific performance had to demonstrate his readiness and willingness to perform his part of reciprocal obligation as to payment of balance sale consideration---In the first place, willingness to perform ones contract in respect of purchase of property implied the capacity to pay the requisite sale consideration within the reasonable time---In the second place, even if he had the capacity to pay the sale consideration, the question still remained whether he had the intention to purchase the property---In the present case the plaintiff-vendee on one hand failed to offer sale consideration within the agreed period; secondly he did not tender the said amount despite order of the Trial Court, and even after his suit for specific performance was dismissed, he made no effort to deposit the balance consideration---In such circumstances the plaintiff was not entitled to return of his earnest money, however out of sheer benevolence defendants-appellants each agreed to refund 50% of the earnest amount received by them to the plaintiff as a humane consideration---Supreme Court after recording its appreciation for the conduct of the defendants, displaying grace toward the plaintiff, directed each defendant to refund 50% of the earnest money received by them to the plaintiff through pay order within 45 days---Appeal was allowed with the said modification. Abdul Hamid v. Abbas Bhai, Abdul Hussain PLD 1959 (W.P.) Kar. 629 and Space Telecommunication (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority 2019 SCMR 101 ref. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 55---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 54---Agreement to sell immoveable property---Time…
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