| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1998 SLD 704 = 1998 CLC 21 |
Sindh High Court
Civil Revision No. 129 of 1994, heard on 28th March, 1997
Presented By: Before Sabihuddin Ahmad, J
Ghulam Sarwar Abassi for Petitioner Mohanlal for
Respondent.
Civil Revision No. 129 of 1994, heard on 28th March, 1997
Presented By: Before Sabihuddin Ahmad, J
Ghulam Sarwar Abassi for Petitioner Mohanlal for
Respondent.
Haji MUHAMMAD YAQOOB through Legal Heirs---Petitioner
VERSUS
SHAH NAWAZ---Respondent
Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)
Section: 55 , 12
Contract Act (IX of 1872) ----S. 55---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Agreement of sale---Time specified for performance of contract whether of essence of contract--Determination---Guidelines---Conditions---Terms of agreement indicated that while vendee was given option to get registration of sale-deed effected even after stipulated date, such option was made available only subject :o strict condition of his performing covenants i.e. clearance of all payments on or before stipulated date---Stipulation that vendor reserved right to cancel sale in the event of vendee's failure to make payment on time, clearly would lead to inference that parties had intended to make time the essence of agreement. Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 55---Expiry of agreed time specified in contract---Effect--- Where time was of the essence of contract, same would not come to an end immediately upon expiry of agreed time; party not at default alone would acquire option to put the same to an end which he might or might not exercise. Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 55---"Time being of essence" and "not being of essence"--Distinction-- Only difference between time being of essence and not being of essence was that while in former case promisee acquired option to avoid contract, in latter case his remedy was only confined to claiming compensation for non-performance within stipulated time ---Promisor, in either case, however, was required to suffer consequences of his breach. Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 113---Suit for specific performance of contract---Limitation---Where contract was required to be performed on specified date, limitation had to be reckoned from that date---Tin : for performance having already been laid down by parties themselves i.e. 15-2-1979, suit for specific performance would only be filed within three years when agreement was to be performed---Suit filed after more than 3 years was clearly barred by limitation---Courts below in decreeing plaintiff's suit had exercised their jurisdiction with material irregularity---Judgments and decrees of Courts below were set…