Case Details

Citation(s)
1996 SLG 1212 1996 SLD 1212 1996 SCMR 762
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 213/L of 1994, decision dated: 5-06-1995
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA AND RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

IFTIKHAR BAIG

VS

MUHAMMAD AZAM and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S. 12---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell decreed with direction to plaintiffs to deposit balance amount of price within specified time---On appeal against the decree High Court on defendant's application suspended operation of decree--­Plaintiffs, therefore, did not deposit amount in view of such suspension of operation of decree---Defendant's attempt to get the suit dismissed for default in deposit of balance amount by plaintiffs, having failed, he withdrew his appeal--- High Court thus dismissed appeal as withdrawn without specifying period under which plaintiffs were required to deposit decretal amount---Appeal had been dismissed without notice to plaintiffs---Plaintiffs when came to know of dismissal of defendant's appeal applied for specifying the time whereunder they could deposit balance amount---High Court specified time and plaintiff deposited balance amount within that time---Effect---Suspension of execution of decree had the effect of suspending direction for payment of balance amount by the plaintiffs---Omission of High Court to pass necessary consequential order for deposit of balance amount could not prejudice rights of plaintiffs as had been rightly found by the High Court---Ordinarily when suit is finally decided, Court becomes functus officio and it cannot make any order for extension of time--­Where, however, operation of execution of decree was stayed by Appellate Court but while disposing of appeal, order extending time or granting further time for deposit of balance amount, which ought to have been made but was not made, Court would have jurisdiction to rectify the error and supply the omission as and when such error/omission was pointed out to it---Order of High Court extending time for deposit of balance amount after disposal of appeal being perfectly lawful, just and fair, would not warrant any interference---Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. (b) Act of Court--- ---- No act or omission of Court should be allowed to prejudice rights of parties and Court was bound to rectify error once it was brought to its notice; Abdul Majeed…
🔒
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