Case Details

Citation(s)
1987 SLG 338 1987 SLD 338 1987 SCMR 398
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1073 of 1985, decision dated: 17-12-1986.(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27-10-1985 in R.S.A. No. 240 of 1985)
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN AND SAAD SAOOD, JAN, JJ
M. Saleem Sahgal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent

Mst. NAWAB BIBI and another

VS

Major (Rtd.) IRSHAD MUHAMMAD KHAN LODHI

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 185(3)--Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12--Agreement for sale of land--Period for completion, of sale fixed as one year and suit for specific performance of contract brought about one year after expiry of said period--Suit remaining pending for more than nine years but at no time plaintiff-petitioner offering to pay full price for land in dispute and instead insisting on paying less than half the agreed price--Courts in circumstances found to be justified in refusing prayer of petitioners for specific performance of agreement--Case, held, was not a fit one where Supreme Court should come to rescue petitioners who were themselves to blame--Leave to appeal refused. JUDGMENT SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- The petitioners in this petition for special leave to appeal are the successors-fn-interest of one Muhammad Ismail who on 20-4-1973 entered into an agreement with respondent to purchase 151 Kanals and 16 Marlas of agricultural land situate in village Marja of Lahore District for sum of Rs.35,000. He paid Rs.6,000 by way of earnest money to the respondent. Subsequently, according to the petitioners, on 15-3-1974 he paid another sum of Rs.25,000 to the respondent. The sale was to be completed within one year. On 25-3-1975 the petitioners filed a suit for the specific performance of the said agreement on the allegation that the respondent had failed to abide by it. The trial Court dismissed the suit and its judgment and decree were affirmed by the additional District Judge and the High Court. 2. The main contest between the parties revolves around the alleged payment of Rs.25,000 by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners to the respondent on 15-3-1974. The learned trial Court as well as the learned Additional District Judge concurrently found that the said payment had not been proved and the receipt produced by the petitioners at the trial in this regard was a forged one. They further held that as the petitioners were not prepared to pay the full price of the land to the respondent, he was justified in not transferring the land to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492