| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 842 2013 SLD 842 2013 CLC 1406 |
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No.511 of 2011, heard on 10-05-2012
RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH AND MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Regular First Appeal No.511 of 2011, heard on 10-05-2012
RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH AND MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Mst. GHAZALA YASMEEN and 3 others
VS
SARFRAZ KHAN DURRANI
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12
Law: Contract Act, 1872
Section: 55
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 12---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.55---Suit for specific performance of sale agreement---Sale agreement found mention that suit property was standing in name of defendant's predecessor, which he was bound to transfer in his name by stipulated date i.e. 30-4-2007; and that in case plaintiff failed to pay balance amount on or before stipulated date, then earnest money would stand forfeited and agreement would stand cancelled---Defendant's plea was that time was essence of the contract, thus, he was not bound by agreement after failure of plaintiff to pay balance amount by stipulated date---Validity---Suit agreement was based on principle of reciprocity as both parties had to fulfil certain conditions---Evidence on record showed that transfer of property in defendant's name from his predecessor was effected on 28-3-2007, but he had not given notice thereof to plaintiff before 30-4-2007 for completing contract by paying him balance money and executing sale-deed in plaintiff's favour---Plaintiff had shown his readiness to perform his part of agreement by depositing balance amount as per order of court---Time was not essence of suit agreement---Suit was decreed in circumstances. Malik Tanvir Ali and another v. Sardar Ali Imam and 2 others 2010 YLR 1799; Ghulam Nabi and others v. Seth Muhammad Yaqoob and others PLD 1983 SC 344; Mst. Amina Bibi v. Mudassar Aziz PLD 2003 SC 430; Muhammad Nawaz Khan and another v. Mst. Farrah Naz PLD 1999 Lah. 238 and Haji Barkat Ali v. Tariq Mahmood 2002 YLR 3096 ref. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 55---Contract for sale of immovable property---Time as essence of such contract or not, determination of---Test stated. Normally in cases other than commercial contracts, that is to say, in contracts relating to immovable property even when a date is mentioned for the performance of the contract, time is not of the essence of the contract. In determining whether time is of the essence of the contract or not, the intention of the parties in this behalf has to be gathered from the contents of the contract itself and the facts and circumstances of the case. Seth Essa Bhoy v. Saboor Ahmad PLD…
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