| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2919 2024 SLD 2919 2024 SLD 672 |
Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench
IInd Appeal No.S-09 of 2022, decided on 28th November, 2023.Date of hearing: 28th November, 2023.
Before Agha Faisal, J
Imdad Ali R Unar for Appellant. Wali M. Jamari, A.A.G. and Parkash Kumar for
Respondents.
IInd Appeal No.S-09 of 2022, decided on 28th November, 2023.Date of hearing: 28th November, 2023.
Before Agha Faisal, J
Imdad Ali R Unar for Appellant. Wali M. Jamari, A.A.G. and Parkash Kumar for
Respondents.
Messrs HAIDER BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS through Managing Director----Appellant
VERSUS
PARKASH KUMAR and 2 others----Respondents
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12,54
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 100,101
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 12 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 100 & 101---Suit for specific performance of agreement and injunction---Second appeal---Maintainability---Appellant / defendant was aggrieved of order passed by Lower Appellate Court setting aside additional amount of consideration imposed by Trial Court in decree passed in favour of respondent / plaintiff---Validity---Second appeal does not ordinarily disturb findings of fact supported by evidence on record---High Court may remit to examine whether there exists proper material to support the findings under S. 103, C.P.C., if evidence on record is sufficient to determine any issue of fact necessary for the disposal of appeal, which has not been determined by Lower Appellate Court or which has been wrongly determined by such Court; by reason of any illegality, omission, error or defect---High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under S.100, C.P.C., declined to interfere in judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court, as the appellant / defendant failed to identify any infirmity in judgment and points framed for determination---Second appeal could only lie if a decision was demonstrated to be contrary to the law; a decision having failed to determine some material issues; and / or a substantial error in the procedure was pointed out---None of these ingredients had been identified by appellant / defendant---Even under S. 101, C.P.C., no appeal could be filed except on the grounds mentioned in S. 100, C.P.C.---Second appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Akram 2000 SCMR 533 and Muhammad Saleh and another v. Muhammad Amin and others 2021 YLR Note 23. ref. Sohail Ahmed v. Pakistan 2023 SCMR 1387; Muhammad Farooq v. Javed Khan PLD 2022 SC 73; Muhammad Saleh and another v. Muhammad Amin and others 2021 YLR Note 23; PLD 1969 SC 617; 2015 MLD 1605; PLD 2007 SC 27; 1986 SCMR 1814; 2012 MLD 1697; 1988 MLD 937 and 2004 SCMR 1342 rel. JUDGMENT AGHA FAISAL, J.----Briefly stated, Suit 487 of 2013 was filed for specific performance of contract, possession and permanent injunction before the 5th Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad and the same was allowed vide…
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