Specific performance The plaintiff allocated compliance in which he had entered into an agreement to purchase a property for Rs 8,000,000 and paid Rs 400,000 as security. 760,000 was outstanding. 
معاہدہ فروخت کی مخصوص کارکردگی: بقایا قیمت کی ادائیگی اور خریدار کی تیاری و رضا مندی
1. مقدمہ اور قانونی پس منظر
2. بقایا قیمت کی ادائیگی اور عدالت کی اختیاری ہدایات
3. انصاف اور مساوات کے اصول
4. عدالت کے استدلال اور حوالہ جات
5. فیصلہ اور اختتام
اس مقدمے کا اردو خلاصہ یہ ہے:
مرکزی نکات:
Must read judgement
2024 C L C 268
[Lahore]
Before Raheel Kamran, J
NASIR ABBAS BHATTI----Petitioner
Versus
ABID HUSSAIN and others----Respondents
Civil Revision No.9463 of 2022, decided on 10th August, 2023.
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss. 12 & 22---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Remaining sale consideration, depositing of---Readiness and willingness of vendee---Scope---Discretionary powers of the Court---There is no provision, undoubtedly, in the Specific Relief Act, 1877 requiring the vendee to deposit the remaining sale consideration upon filing of the suit for specific performance of contract, however, as the relief of specific performance is discretionary in nature and cannot be claimed as a matter of right, therefore, the vendee must state that he has performed all the conditions which under the agreement he was bound to perform and right from the date of execution of the agreement till filing of the suit he had been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; he is not only required to state in the plaint his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract but also establish through supporting evidence like pay order, bank statement or other material, his ability to perform his part, leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court that the proceedings seeking specific performance have not been initiated to cover up his default or to gain time to generate resources---It is in said context, the Court in order to weigh his (vendee's) capacity to perform and intention to purchase may direct the vendee to deposit the balance sale consideration---Readiness and willingness on the part of the vendee to perform his part of the obligation also prima facie demonstrates that non-completion of the contract was not the fault of the vendee and the contract would have been completed if it has not been renounced by the vendor---No illegality or infirmity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below, dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for non-depositing of remaining consideration---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.
(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss. 12 & 22---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Equity and fairness in the contract---Remaining sale consideration, non-deposit of---Readiness and willingness of the plaintiff/vendee---Scope---Discretionary powers of the Court---Suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell was dismissed due to non-deposit of remaining sale consideration and appeal preferred there-against was also dismissed---Contention of the petitioner was that since the respondents/ defendants had disputed the execution of agreement to sell in question, therefore, the petitioner was not liable to pay the remaining sale consideration---Validity---Trial Court, after recording oral evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner, in order to evaluate his bona fide and readiness, directed him to deposit the remaining sale consideration but he, despite availing two opportunities, failed to comply with the said order---There are many instances in which though there is nothing that actually amounts to fraud, nevertheless there is a want of equity and fairness in the contract which are essential in order that the Court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in specific performance---In judging the fairness of a contract the Court looks not merely on the terms of the contract but all the surrounding circumstances---Position that emerged in the present case was that specific performance of an agreement executed in the year 2013 for a consideration of a Rs.8,000,000/- was being sought only after paying an amount of Rs.400,000/- as earnest money when the value of the property-in-dispute had multiplied exponentially, as claimed by the respondents while value of the local currency had remarkably depreciated, and that too despite failure of the petitioner to deposit the remaining sale consideration on order passed by the Trial Court---Conduct of the petitioner/plaintiff manifestly showed non-seriousness and unwillingness on his part---Such exercise of jurisdiction might lead to miscarriage of justice and unfair advantage to the petitioner who, by merely paying a meager amount, had bound down the respondents for a number of years---Trial Court's order clearly specified that in case of failure to deposit the balance sale price, suit of the plaintiff would be dismissed---No illegality or infirmity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below, dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff for non-depositing of remaining consideration---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.
Rab Nawaz v. Mustaqeem Khan 1999 SCMR 1362; Muhammad Abdul Rehman Qureshi v. Sagheer Ahmad 2017 SCMR 1696 and Anayat Ullah Khan and others v. Shabbir Ahmad Khan 2021 SCMR 686 ref.
Muhammad Asif Awan v. Dawood Khan and others 2021 SCMR 1270 distinguished.
(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss. 12 & 22---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.23---Suit for specific performance of a agreement to sell---Remaining sale consideration, non-deposit of ---Principles governing equity of redemption---Trial Court ordered the plaintiff/vendee to deposit remaining consideration amount or his case would be dismissed, however, he moved an application for extension of time till decision of the Banking Court wherein proceedings involving suit property were allegedly pending---Validity---Any transfer of the property subject matter of proceedings before a Banking Court were subject to the provisions of S. 23 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and principles governing equity of redemption, however, the same did not absolve a plaintiff seeking specific performance of an agreement of his equitable burden to establish readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement---No illegality or infirmity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below, dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff for non-depositing of remaining consideration---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.
Ch. Fiaz Ahmad Singhairah for Petitioner.
Shahbaz Ahmad Khan Yousafzai for