Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 2860 2024 SLD 2860 2024 CLC 205
Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan
R.S.A. No.226 of 2016, heard on 10th November, 2021.Date of hearing: 10th November, 2021.
Before Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, J
Manzoor Hussain Bhutta for Appellant. Malik Muhammad Akbar Bhutta for
Respondents.

Malik MUHAMMAD ALTAF----Appellant

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF (deceased) through Legal Heirs and another--- Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 17,9

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VI, R.17 & O.VIII, R.9---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell---Amended written statement, alterations in---Permission of Court---Suit was decreed by the Trial Court but the appellate Court while accepting the appeal set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court---Validity---Record showed that a direction to file amended plaint was passed on the application filed by respondent No.1, himself---After direction of the Trial Court, appellant amended the heading, paragraphs Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint to the effect that the claimed property was reduced from 21-marlas to 17-marlas---However, while filing the amended written statement, preliminary objection No.3 was added in the amended written statement taking a somersault and in deviation of earlier stance, where respondent conceded that he was willing to perform agreement and pass on 17-Marlas, another stance had been adopted that he was ready to transfer 17-Marlas earlier but now he did not want to perform the agreement---Reply to paragraph No. 3 was also altered to the effect that since last date of performance of agreement was 30.10.2006 which had elapsed, therefore, he was not willing to perform the agreement and the suit property had already been transferred by respondent No. 1 to his wife/respondent No.2---Respondent No. 1 had not just resiled from his original stance but at the same time he had failed to seek any permission or leave from the Trial Court, while making alterations in the amended written statement, which was not permissible by law---Appellant in his pleadings and evidence asserted that he remained ready to pay the remaining consideration whereas the respondent No.1 had refused to accept the same---Against the said stance, defendant had also taken a specific plea that the appellant did not have the capacity or willingness to pay the remaining consideration but his own conduct during trial suggested other way of around---Firstly, respondent took the stance that he was willing to perform agreement dated 23.06.2006 even after filing the suit, later he resiled from the said…
🔒
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