Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 4003 2002 SLD 4003 = 2002 YLR 2795
Lahore High Court

Presented By:

Law:

Section:

(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S.55---Time was not essence of contract relating to immovable property--Agreement of sale of immovable property arrived at between the parties had shown that there was no fixed time mentioned for execution of the sale-deed- Agreement of sale though stipulated that balance amount of the sale price would be paid up to specific date, but it was the option of the vendee that vendor would execute the sale-deed in his favour whenever vendee desired-- Contention that time was of the essence of contract and that the vendee/plaintiff had failed to perform his part of agreement was of no substance because the plaintiff vendee had paid amount as earnest money and was always willing and ready to perform his part of the agreement---Time was not essence of contract relating to immovable property---Decree for the specific performance of agreement passed by the Trial Court was confirmed. Jamshed Rodha Ram Irani v. Bujrgi Dhuni Bhi AIR 1915 PC 83; Abdul Hamid v. Abbas Bhai-Abdul Hussain Sodawaterwala PLD 1962 SC 1; Mst. Khair-un-Nisa and 6 others v. Malik Muhammad Ishaque and others PLD 1972 SC 39; Ghulam Nabi and others v. Seth Muhammad Yaqub PLD 1983 SC 344: Muhammad Sharif v. Mst. Fauji alias Phaji through Legal Heirs 1988 SCMR 2485; Abdul Habib Durrani v. Toriali 1999 CLC. 207; Noor Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Ishaq and another 2000 MLD 251: Mehr Din v. Dr. Bashir Ahmad Khan and others 1985 SCMR 1; Messrs Pioneer Housing Society (Pvt.) Limited through Managing Director, Bank Square, Lahore v. Messrs Babar & Company through Shakir Ali Khan and 2 others PLD 1999 Lah. 193 and Haji Abdul Rehman v. Niaz Ali through Legal Heirs 2000 CLC 184 ref. (b) Maxim--- ---- One who seeks equity must do equity. JUDGMENT ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.--This appeal under section 96, C.P.C. has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-9-1992 passed by the learned Senior. Civil Judge, Attock, whereby the learned trial Court has decreed the respondent's suit for specific performance of agreement dated 1-2-1988. 2. Precise facts of the case, relevant for disposal of the instant appeal are that appellant/defendant was owner in possession of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register