Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 96, 11, 3

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: 54

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 114

Tagline Specific Performance Upheld: Dismissal of Challenge to Commercial Property Sale Based on Constructive Res Judicata, Admissions in Prior Dismissed Suits, and Delivery of Possession.  Summary This Regular First Appeal (RFA) under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), 1908, was filed by appellants Albeena Babar and Zaheer-ud-Din Babar against the judgment and decree dated February 8, 2020, passed by the Senior Civil Judge-I-West, Islamabad. The trial court had decreed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction in favor of respondent No. 1, Muhammad Bilal Khan. Factual Background: Appellant No. 2 (owner of Shop No. 1, Ground Floor, Al-Babar Centre, F-8 Markaz, Islamabad) appointed his wife (Appellant No. 1) as his attorney. On December 31, 2003, Appellant No. 1 executed an agreement to sell (first agreement) with Khurram Ali Khan (Respondent No. 2) through his father/attorney Nasihat Ali Khan (Respondent No. 3) for Rs. 57,50,000. Subsequently, on March 8, 2011, Respondent No. 3 (on behalf of Respondent No. 2) sold the same shop to Respondent No. 1 (Bilal Khan) for Rs. 1,37,00,000 via a second agreement, received the full consideration, and delivered physical possession. Appellants' Claim: The appellants argued that Respondent No. 2 was never the complete owner of the shop, the second agreement was executed without their knowledge, and Respondent No. 1 paid no consideration directly to them. Court's Findings: Admissions in Prior Litigation: Appellant No. 1 had previously filed two civil suits (Nos. 1141 & 1142 of 2013) seeking cancellation of the sale documents and recovery of Rs. 5,50,000 in arrears from the original sale of Rs. 57,50,000. In those plaints, she explicitly admitted selling the shop to Respondent No. 2 and acknowledged that Respondent No. 1 was in lawful possession. Dismissal of Prior Suits & Res Judicata: Those prior suits were dismissed for non-prosecution and failure to lead evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3 C.P.C. on December 18, 2018. The appellants did not appeal those dismissals. Clandestinely raising the same defense in the current appeal was barred by the…