| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1962 SLG 2861 = 1962 SLD 2861 = 1962 PLD 390 |
Sindh High Court
Letters Patent Appeal No. 17 of 1961, decided on 22nd December 1961
Presented By: Wahiduddin Ahmed and Bashir Ahmed JJ
Ibadatyar Khan for Appellants. Samad Khan for
Respondents. Dates of hearing: 22nd and 27th November 1961 and 5th December 1961.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 17 of 1961, decided on 22nd December 1961
Presented By: Wahiduddin Ahmed and Bashir Ahmed JJ
Ibadatyar Khan for Appellants. Samad Khan for
Respondents. Dates of hearing: 22nd and 27th November 1961 and 5th December 1961.
MESSRS S. M. FAZAIL & Co.-Appellants
VERSUS
MESSRS SIND INDUSTRIAL TRADING ESTATES LTD.-Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O. VI, r. 2
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, r. 2-Alternative and inconsistent pleadings-Party adopting, does so at own risk-Suit for specific performance of contract-Alternative plea leading to conclusion that party was not willing to perform his part of con tract-Alternative plea fatal do case. Though the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 does not prohibit inconsistent pleadings, and there is nothing to prevent either party from setting up two or more inconsistent sets of material facts and claiming relief thereunder in the alternative, it does not mean that a party in adopting this procedure is not incurring a big risk. If the alternative case set up by him In a case of specific performance of a contract is of such nature that it leads to the conclusion that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract at all material times, such inconsistent and alternative pleas generally prove fatal to the case of the plaintiff. If a party had agreed to purchase a property on certain terms and had set out in the pleadings that he was entitled to purchase this property on some other terms on the basis of some inconsistent allegations, such conduct clearly tent-amounts to conduct of an unwilling party. Therefore, in a case where a purchaser wishes to get rid of the terms of the original contract and comes to enforce the contract in his own terms, it is not open to him to give up that position and ask the Court to enforce the contract which was agreed upon by the parties. If any such right is recognised, it will not only endanger the sanctity of the contract but will result in encouraging parties to take up dishonest pleas for delaying the performance of the contract besides, other absurdities. Arun Prokash Boral v. Tulsi Charan Bose A I R 1949 Cal. 510 distinguished JUDGMENT WAHIDUDDIN AHMED, J.-This Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of Faruqui, J. in Suit No. 34 of 1958 dated the l7th of November 1960 dismissing the appellants' suit for specific performance of the contract in respect of plot No. 7-B, measuring about two acres situated in the Sind Industrial Trading Estates area, Manghopir Road, Karachi,…