Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 12(2)

Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 12

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 12---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance--Legal heirs of an applicant, who had filed an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. contesting the case---Entitlement---Applicant, who had filed an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., died while he had assailed dismissal of his application against exparte decree by way of filing revision application before the Appellate/District Court---Petitioner/plaintiff assailed judgment passed by appellate/District Court, which, while setting aside ex-parte decree sent the matter for trial to be contested by the parties including legal heirs of the applicant---Validity---Record revealed that performance was sought by the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit against the person (defendant/respondent), who prima facie was only a partner in the business and not the co-owner of the land/project ('property-in-question'); said defendant might have a dispute with the co-partner within their partnership business related to accounts but could not prima facie be deemed to bean owner of the property-in-question--The preferential right of the parties in relation to the property-in-question, if at all pressed, could only be determined during trial in presence of the legal heirs of respondent (applicant under section 12(2) C.P.C.) and not otherwise---The suit in the shape of a claim of the petitioner being pending would be defended by the parties including the legal heirs of applicant under section 12(2), C.P.C., and fresh evidence in this regard may be recorded by the trial court in the said suit, if so desired---No interference was required in the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate/District Court ordering to send the case for trial while setting-aside exparte decree---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances..Date of hearing: 1st November, 2023.JUDGMENTMUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J.---This case has some complexed history, as some multiple legal proceedings have been undertaken.2.    Originally, a suit bearing No.459/2011 for performance was filed by the petitioner against respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The suit was decreed ex-parte and an…