Law:

Section:

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S.12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5.115---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),, Art.185(3)---Interference by High Court in revision--­Scope---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Findings of facts recorded by First Appellate Court-=-Interference by High Court in revision under S.115, Cr.P.C. with such findings---Validity---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider-the question as to whether the High Court was justified in exercising revisional jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C. to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the First Appellate Court. (b) Co-owner--- ----One of the joint owners if deals with the property in the ordinary circumstances, would not adversely affect the other joint owner's rights in the property. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of'1908)--- ----S.115---Revision---Maintainability---Appellate Court while recording findings of facts in its order for the reversal of findings recorded by Trial Court had not taken into consideration the material. aspects of the case emerging from the circumstances and the evidence produced by the respondent--=Such being the position, case was eminently a fit one to hold that of Appellate Court was based not only on misreading but on non-consideration of material piece of evidence which was liable to be interfered with under S.11,5(c), C.P.C. (d) Specific )Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.1.2---Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale of property--­Slackness on the part of the plaintiff to approach the Court after a period of about nine years after the execution of the agreement of sale---Had the plaintiff approached earlier he would have been benefited by the deposit of Rs.2,000 at the relevant time, as with the passing of the time there was inflation in the value of currency---Grant of decree for specific performance of agreement, being a discretionary and equitable relief, under the law, Supreme Court while exercising the discretion in the interest of justice in favour of the plaintiff raised the amount of remaining consideration from Rs.2,000 to Rs.1,00,000---Suit was ordered to be decreed accordingly. Ch. Khursheed Ahmad,…

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