Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 641 2025 SLD 641 = 2025 MLD 355
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 26520 of 2019, heard on 29th April, 2024.
Before Abid Hussain Chattha, J
Mian Muhammad Faheem Bashir for Petitioners. Muhammad Salman Masood and Muhammad Nisar Qammar for
Respondent No. 1. Ms. Samia Syed for
Respondent No. 2. Talat Mehmood Advocate vice counsel for
Respondent No. 3. Proceeded exparte vide Order dated 25th September, 2023 for
Respondent No. 4.

Mst. ABIDA RAFIQUE GHOURI through legal heir---Petitioner

VERSUS

Syed AMJAD HUSSAIN GILLANI and 3 others---Respondents

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: I,12

(a)    Specific Relief Act ( I of 1877)-------S. 12---Suit for specific performance---Agreement to sell, execution of--Financial ability to complete the transaction---Scope---Suit was concurrently decreed in favour of plaintiff /buyer---Plea of the petitioner(lady defendant/seller) was that the respondent did not have the financial ability to complete the transaction---Validity---Admittedly, the respondent /plaintiff as buyer of the suit-property issued a cross cheque in the name of the Petitioner (defendant/seller) three days before the target date, a copy of which was handed over to the petitioner requiring her to initiate the process of transfer in the relevant authority (LDA)---However, there was no evidence on record that the petitioner took any step for execution of the sale deed or transfer of the suit property in LDA in the name of the respondent---As per the contents of the agreement, the balance sale consideration was payable at the time of execution of sale deed or transfer before the LDA, therefore, the plea of the petitioner (regarding respondent's financial inability to complete the transaction) was immature and based on assumption that he did not have requisite funds in the bank account regarding which he had issued the cross cheque in favour of the petitioner because payment could have been made in cash or through pay order from another account or by any other means---Petitioner was bound to initiate the process of sale transaction and may well have required the payment of balance sale consideration through pay order or cash or by any other mode at the time of execution of sale deed or transfer of the suit property before LDA but that time did not arrive due to lapse on the part of the petitioner---Both the Courts below had rendered well-reasoned and sound judgments after due appreciation of evidence and taking into account all aspects of the case requiring no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court---Civil revision filed by defendant/seller, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances.(b)    Specific Relief Act ( I of 1877)-------S. 12---Suit for specific…
🔒
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