| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2915 2024 SLD 2915 2024 CLC 638 |
Islamabad High Court
R.F.A. No.163 of 2018, decided on 10th March, 2021.Syed Javid Akbar for Appellant. Raja Yasir Yousaf Abbasi for Respondent No.1. Misbah-ul-Mustafa for Respondent No.2.
Before Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb and Lubna Saleem Pervez, JJ
Syed Javid Akbar for Appellant. Raja Yasir Yousaf Abbasi for
Respondent No.1. Misbah-ul-Mustafa for
Respondent No.2.
R.F.A. No.163 of 2018, decided on 10th March, 2021.Syed Javid Akbar for Appellant. Raja Yasir Yousaf Abbasi for Respondent No.1. Misbah-ul-Mustafa for Respondent No.2.
Before Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb and Lubna Saleem Pervez, JJ
Syed Javid Akbar for Appellant. Raja Yasir Yousaf Abbasi for
Respondent No.1. Misbah-ul-Mustafa for
Respondent No.2.
MUHAMMAD AKRAM----Appellant
VERSUS
LIAQAT ALI KHAN and another----Respondents
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12,54
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 12 & 54---Suit for specific performance and permanent injunction---Transfer of suit-house---Time as the essence of the contract---Contractual obligations, breach of---Vendor or vendee---Determination---Vendee's inability for preparation (of cheque etc.) for payment of balance consideration---Effect---Suit for specific performance was decreed in favour of plaintiff/vendee---Claim of the respondent/plaintiff was that appellant/ defendant had backed out of his contractual obligation as he had not taken preparatory steps for the transfer of suit-house like not obtaining a No Demand Certificate from the concerned Authority (C.D.A.) being a pre-requisite for the transfer of any property---Validity---Pleadings in the written statement were silent as to the stage when the appellant/defendant decided to back out from his obligations under the agreements---Where agreements for the transfer of immovable property for consideration as huge as Rs.1,00,00,000/- are to be made, the parties generally interact for making arrangements for the transfer and payment of the remaining sale consideration prior to the target date fixed in the agreements---No documentary evidence was brought on the record by respondent /plaintiff to demonstrate that he had the requisite funds to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- by the target date---Generally pay orders or demand drafts are made prior to or by the target date fixed in the agreements to sell---In the present case, admittedly, no pay order or demand draft or cheque for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- had been prepared by respondent / plaintiff by the target date---Agreements to sell, duly exhibited by the respondent / plaintiff, explicitly provided a specific date (10.06.2016) for the payment of the remaining sale consideration amounting to Rs.50,00,000/---Consequences for the non-payment of the balance sale consideration by said date were also clearly set out in the said agreements, i.e. the forfeiture of the amount already paid---An amount of Rs.50,00,000/- had admittedly been paid by respondent / plaintiff to the appellant when the said agreement was executed---Therefore, it…
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