Installment |Supreme Court Rules on Delayed Installment Payments: No Excuses Accepted.
 |
| "Supreme Court Rules on Delayed Installment Payments: No Excuses Accepted" |
رانا منور خان (خریدار) نے دعویٰ برائے مستقل حکم امتناعی (Suit for Permanent Injunction) دائر کیا تھا۔
دعویٰ کی بنیاد:
- پلاٹ کی الاٹمنٹ قسطوں پر ہوئی، لیکن خریدار نے قسطیں ادا نہیں کیں کیونکہ پلاٹ پر ہائی ٹینشن وائرز اور بجلی کے کھمبے موجود تھے، جنہیں CDA نے ہٹایا نہیں تھا۔
- معاہدے کی شق 6 کے مطابق، قبضہ ایک ماہ میں دیا جانا تھا لیکن یہ قبضہ 14-01-1988 کی بجائے 27-02-1988 کو دیا گیا۔
- چونکہ قبضہ تاخیر سے اور ہائی ٹینشن وائرز کے ساتھ دیا گیا تھا، اس لیے خریدار نے قسطیں وقت پر ادا نہیں کیں۔
- بعد میں CDA نے قسطوں پر لیٹ چارجز عائد کر دیے، جس پر خریدار نے عدالت سے رجوع کیا کہ اس پر تاخیر سے ادائیگی کے چارجز لاگو نہ کیے جائیں۔
عدالت کا فیصلہ:
- سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ معاہدے میں ایسا کوئی ذکر نہیں تھا کہ قبضہ صرف ہائی ٹینشن وائرز ہٹانے کے بعد دیا جائے گا۔
- خریدار نے خود قبضہ لیٹر پر دستخط کرکے تسلیم کیا تھا کہ پلاٹ پر کوئی تجاوزات نہیں ہیں۔
- قبضہ تاخیر سے ملا لیکن یہ تاخیر زیادہ نہیں تھی (40 سے 45 دن)، اور اس کے باوجود خریدار قسط بروقت ادا کرنے کا پابند تھا۔
- عدالت نے خریدار کا دعویٰ مسترد کر دیا اور CDA کے حق میں فیصلہ دیتے ہوئے لیٹ چارجز کی ادائیگی کا حکم دے دیا۔
Must read judgement.
Citation Name : 2021 SCMR 483 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Side Opponent : Rana MUNAWAR KHAN
Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Allotment letter, interpretation of---Allotment of plot on installment s---installment s delayed by purchaser due to non-removal of high-tension wires from the plot by Capital Development Authority (CDA)---installment s were re-scheduled on orders of the Federal Ombudsperson---Delayed payment charges were imposed on purchaser by CDA once all installment s were paid---Plea of purchaser/respondent that he did not pay the installment s within time as according to clause 6 of the lease agreement the possession of the plot free from all encumbrances and ready for construction was to be delivered to him within a period of one month i.e. on or before 14-01-1988 but the same was delivered on 27-02-1988 without removing high tension wires and electric poles, which were passing through all the plots of that area---Validity---Clause 6 of the lease agreement/allotment letter did not state that the CDA was bound to deliver the possession after removing of high tension wires etc.---However, it appears from the noting portion of the CDA that Town Planner-1 vide a memo had informed that an overhead electric line was encroaching the plots in the area but the same was removed and the possession was handed over to the respondent without any further encroachment---Such claim found force from the possession letter, wherein the respondent had himself admitted that there was no encroachment on his plot---Respondent has himself signed the possession letter and certified that he had seen his plot and all its corners, there was no encroachment on his plot, and no service line was passing within his plot---Although possession was delivered to him late but the delay was only of 40 to 45 days---Respondent had to pay the first installment by 01-03-1988 but despite the fact that possession was handed over to him on 27-02-1988, he did not pay the same---Appellant/CDA issued him a letter dated 08-04-1989 to make the payment but instead of complying, he filed a suit for permanent injunction, which prima facie shows that he wanted to avoid payment accrued towards him---Purpose of the respondent was to evade payment while buying time---Proceedings before the civil court continued for a period of five years and when the respondent saw that he would not be able to get a favourable order, he withdrew the suit and approached the Federal Ombudsman---Respondent was bound to pay the delayed payment charges---Appeal was allowed