Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLG 1218 1998 SLD 1218 1998 CLC 265
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No. 4 of 1989, decision dated: 22-04-1997, hearing DATE : 31st March, 1997
MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM AND AMIR ALAM KHAN, JJ
Muhammad Hassan for Appellants. Imdad Ali Khan for
Respondents

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and another

VS

Mst. BASHIRAN BIBI and 5 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)----------S. 55---Rescission of contract for non-payment of balance amount on specified date---Substantial amount out of agreed consideration stood paid to defendant by plaintiffs---Agreement of sale although contained express stipulation that in case of non-payment of specified amount on date mentioned in such agreement, defendant would have right to rescind the contract and forfeit earnest money, but no such condition was incorporated with respect to payment of remaining amount of consideration---Parties themselves, thus, did not treat date for last payment as essential term of agreement---Contract in question, thus, could not have been rescinded by defendant in terms of S.55, Contract Act, 1872---Mere delay in filing suit or silence on the part of plaintiffs would not lead to inference of waiver or abandonment of rights under the agreement. Ghulam Nabi and others v. Seth Muhammad Yaqub and others PLD 1983 SC 344; Syed Arif Shah v. Abdul Hakeem Qureshi PLD 1991 SC 905; Aman Enterprises, Sialkot v. Rahim Industries Pakistan Ltd., Sialkot PLD 1993 SC 292 and Mrs. Mussarat Shaukat Ali v. Mrs. Safia Khatoon and others 1994 SCMR 2189 rel. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- -----S. 12---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 113---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Limitation---Law itself having fixed period of three years for filing suit for specific performance from the date fixed in that behalf or refusal, plaintiff would have option to file his suit even on the last day of limitation. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)----- ----S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement---Trial Court had dismissed plaintiff's suit---Validity---High Court on appraisal of evidence found that witnesses produced by plaintiff were independent, therefore, their evidence should have been preferred to that of defendant whose witnesses were either chance witnesses or closely related to him---Trial Court's and decree was, thus, set aside and plaintiff's suit was decreed. JUDGMENT MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J. ---This is, plaintiff's' first appeal from the judgment and decree, dated 5-1-1989 of Senior Civil Judge, Toba Tek Singh…
🔒
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