Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 12

Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877)--- ----S.12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) OXXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 & O.XLIII, R.1---Suit for specific performance of sale agreement---Grant of prohibitory order---Essentials---Ordinarily, in a suit for specific performance of sale agreement, Court should subject prohibitory order for restraining defendant from alienating property agreed upon to be sold, to the condition that plaintiff deposited balance of agreed sale consideration in Court---Trial Court's unconditional prohibitory order was thus, liable to modification---High Court, in appeal, modified order in question to the extent that prohibitory order would be subject to condition that plaintiff would deposit in Trial Court, within three months; balance of agreed sale consideration, failing which, prohibitory order would stand vacated. Fateh Muhammad v. Muhammad Hanif and another P L D 1990 Lah. 82; Mrs. Parveen Begum's case P L D 1956 (W.P.) Kar. 521; Feroze-ud-Din and another 1987 M L D 2035 (1) and Shama Enterprises (Private) Limited's case 1989MLD21rel. Saleem Baig for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th May, 1991. JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the order dated 18-2-1.990, whereby Syed Shafqat Ahmed, learned Civil Judge 1st Class Lahore, accepted the respondent's application for temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance and had restrained the appellants from alienating the property in dispute till the disposal of the said suit. The relevant facts which gave rise to the present appeal are that on 17-9-1989, Tahir Mehmood, respondent herein, instituted a suit for specific performance against Mst. Bilqees Zaman Khan and Muhammad Saeed, appellants. He alleged that on 19-4-1989, the appellants had executed an agreement in his favour to sell the suit land measuring 2 kanals for a price of Rs.16,00,000 and received Rs.4,00,000 from him as earnest money. The sale-deed, according to him, was to be executed and registered by 30th   August, 1989 and the remaining sale price was to be paid at that time. It was alleged that the respondent had asked the appellants on a number of times to perform the said, contract, but they…