| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 2167 2022 SLD 2167 2022 MLD 874 |
Sindh High Court
Civil Revision Application No. 135 of 2019, decision Dated: 7th January, 2022.
ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Revision Application No. 135 of 2019, decision Dated: 7th January, 2022.
ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD ZAKIR--Applicant
VS
MUHAMMAD FAISAL and 2 others
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12,39,42
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 113
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 115
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.12, 39, 42----Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.113---Agreement to sell---Limitation---Payment of part consideration---Admission---Out of total consideration some amount was paid by respondent and part payment was agreed to be paid as per the terms of agreement filed suit for declaration, specific performance and permanent injunction---Petitioner filed suit for cancellation of the sale agreement---Trial Court had decreed the respondents suit and dismissed the suit filed by petitioner---Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner---Petitioner contended that the Appellate Court had not passed the speaking ; that Courts below had grossly ignored the case-law; that time was the essence of the contract; that respondent failed to pay balance sale consideration up to the specified date/time/place; that he also failed to deposit the remaining consideration on the first date of hearing of his suit; and that Courts below failed to consider the limitation in filing the suit---Validity---Both the courts below had dealt with petitioners issue very elaborately, thus could not be lightly interfered with---Petitioner had failed to point out any perversity/illegality in impugned s/decrees passed by Courts below---Petitioner agitated the grounds at the revision stage, which had already been exhausted by him and properly adjudicated by the competent forums---Petitioners plea as to respondents suit been time-barred, had also been taken care of by Appellate Court---Date of performance was effected from the execution of the sale agreement, while in his cross-examination, petitioner had admitted that no time limit was fixed for performance of payment of balance amount---Balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed---Petitioner also admitted his thumb impression over the payment receipt which factum prima facie showed his admission of receiving certain amounts---Revision petition was dismissed accordingly. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.115---Revisional jurisdiction---Discretion of Courts---Scope---Revision is a matter between the higher and subordinate courts, and the right to move an…
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