G-KZ4T1KYLW3 Karachi High Court Ruling: Plaintiff Denied Specific Performance but Entitled to Refund of Advance Payment

Karachi High Court Ruling: Plaintiff Denied Specific Performance but Entitled to Refund of Advance Payment

Karachi High Court Ruling: Plaintiff Denied Specific Performance but Entitled to Refund of Advance Payment.


اگر خریدار معاھدہ کی شرائط پوری نہیں کرتا تو اس کا بیا نہ ضبط کیا جا سکتا ھے۔

، اس کا تفصیلی خلاصہ اور قانونی نتیجہ درج ذیل ہے:

مقدمہ:

2020 CLC 300 — شہزاد نبی بنام ناصر ترابی و دیگر
عدالت: سندھ ہائی کورٹ، کراچی
جج: جناب جسٹس محمد فیصل کمال عالم
مدعی: شہزاد نبی (خریدار)
مدعا علیہان: ناصر ترابی و دیگر (فروخت کنندگان)
موضوع: Specific Performance (معاہدے پر عملدرآمد کی درخواست)

فیصلے کے اہم نکات:

  1. معاہدہ و ادائیگی:

    • مدعی اور مدعا علیہان کے درمیان تین معاہدے ہوئے، جن میں آخری معاہدہ 04.02.2014 کو ہوا۔
    • کل قیمت 4 کروڑ مقرر ہوئی، جس میں سے 40 لاکھ روپے ایڈوانس دیے گئے۔
    • مدعی کو بقیہ 3.6 کروڑ روپے 06.03.2014 تک ادا کرنا تھے، جو وہ مقررہ وقت پر ادا نہ کر سکا۔

  2. عدالت میں جمع رقم:

    • مدعی نے صرف 1 کروڑ روپے اور ایک اور جائیداد کی دستاویزات بطور سیکیورٹی جمع کرائیں۔
    • عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ یہ ادائیگی بقیہ رقم کے مکمل ادائیگی کے برابر نہیں ہے۔

  3. سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلوں کا حوالہ:

    • 2017 SCMR 2022 (حمود محمود کیس):
      Specific Performance کے دعووں میں عدالت میں مکمل بقیہ رقم جمع کروانا لازم ہے، بصورت دیگر دعویٰ مسترد کیا جائے گا۔
    • 2017 SCMR 1969 (صغیر احمد کیس):
      عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ آج کل کے تجارتی حالات اور زمین کی بڑھتی ہوئی قیمتوں کے پیش نظر "وقت کی اہمیت" کو نظرانداز نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔

  4. مدعی کی مالی حیثیت:

    • عدالت نے کہا کہ مدعی کے پاس درحقیقت مکمل ادائیگی کے لیے فنڈز ہی موجود نہ تھے۔

  5. جائیداد کا فروخت ہو جانا:

    • مدعا علیہان نے متنازعہ جائیداد 23.06.2015 کو ایک تیسرے فریق (S.M.&A. Associates) کو فروخت کر دی، جو کہ "بونا فائیڈ پرچیزر" (نیک نیتی سے خریدنے والا) تھا۔

  6. Specific Performance کی درخواست مسترد:

    • عدالت نے مدعی کی Specific Performance کی درخواست مسترد کر دی۔

فروخت کنندگان کی طرف سے ایڈوانس ضبطی (Forfeiture) کا دعویٰ:

  • عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ اگرچہ معاہدے کے مطابق 40 لاکھ روپے ضبط کیے جا سکتے تھے، مگر چونکہ فروخت کنندگان نے جائیداد زیادہ قیمت پر فروخت کی، لہٰذا وہ کوئی نقصان نہیں اٹھا پائے۔
  • عدالت نے 30 لاکھ روپے واپس کرنے اور صرف 10 لاکھ ضبط کرنے کی اجازت دی۔

عدالتی حکم (Final Order):

  1. مدعی Specific Performance کا حقدار نہیں ہے۔
  2. مدعی کو 30 لاکھ روپے واپس دیے جائیں گے، جبکہ 10 لاکھ ضبط کیے جائیں گے۔
  3. PECHS جائیداد کی دستاویزات اور 1 کروڑ روپے مدعی کو واپس کیے جائیں گے۔
  4. فریقین اپنے اپنے اخراجات برداشت کریں گے۔

Must read judgement 

2020 CLC 300

SHAHZAD NABI Versus NASEER TURABI KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH

JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM, J.----The matter was reserved for passing order on the Issues framed on 29.03.2016, which are reproduced for sake of reference herein below:-- "1. Whether the suit is maintainable? 2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Specific Performance in view of his financial position or otherwise? 3. What would be the effect of deposition of Rs.10 Million in cash and property documents of a residential plot bearing No.115-R, 300 Square Yards, Block-2, PECHS, Karachi?" 2. Since the entire suit is to be decided on the above legal Issues, therefore, only that record is to be considered, which is undisputed. Plaintiff and Defendants Nos.1 to 7 have entered in a sale and purchase transaction of a built-up property (Double Storey House) at plot No.C-19 measuring 600 Square Yards, Block-20, KDA Schemed No.16, situated at Federal "B" Area, Karachi, ('Subject Property'), for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000,00/- (Rupees Forty Million only). Plaintiff was/is a purchaser/vendee, whereas, Defendants Nos.1 to 7 were/are sellers/vendors. 3. Initially, Agreement to Sell dated 24.10.2013 was executed between Plaintiff and Defendants Nos.1 to 7, who for the sake of reference and distinguish them from other Defendants, be called as 'Objectors'. Since the transaction could not be completed within stipulated time of three months, therefore, a subsequent Agreement with the caption 'First Supplementary Agreement to Sell' dated 21.01.2014 was executed, which was followed by yet another 'Second Supplementary Agreement to Sell' dated 04.02.2014. All these three Agreements are appended with the plaint as Annexures "A" "G" and "H", respectively. Out of total sale price of Rs.40 Million (Rupees Forty Million), an advance payment of Rs.4 Million (Rupees Four Million) was paid by Plaintiff to the above Objectors. One of the main reasons which led the Plaintiff to file the present lis as averred in the plaint is that one of the Objectors-Defendant No.3 left for Canada and was not present on 06.03.2014 for the purpose of affecting mutation in favour of Plaintiff and although the Plaintiff had the balance sale price ready with him but the transaction could not be completed due to default on the part of Objectors. Plaint has following Prayer Clause_ "The Plaintiff, respectfully prays as under:- a. To direct the Defendants to perform their respective part of sale agreement dated 24.10.2013 and take their remaining amount of Rs.3,60,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crore and Sixty Lacs only) and in lieu of that hand over peaceful possession of Suit Property i.e. Plot of Zand with constructed Double Storey House thereon bearing Plot / House No.C-19 measuring 600 Square Yards, Block-20, KDA Schemed No.16, situated at Federal "B" Area, Karachi to the Plaintiff and gets the registered. b. Conveyance Deed in favour of Plaintiff in case the Defendants failed the Nazir of this Hon'ble Court may be directed to get the Sale / Conveyance Deed in favour of the Plaintiff. c. Direct the Defendant No.8 (KDA) to mutate the Suit Property in favour of the Plaintiff. d. Restraint permanently the Defendants, through legal heirs from alienating, transferring, encumbering, or in any other manner from creating any third party interest in property i.e. Plot of Land with constructed Double Storey House thereon bearing Plot / House No.C-19 measuring 600 Square Yards, Block-20, KDA Scheme No.16, situated at Federal "B" Area, Karachi. e. That the Defendants may also be restrained from transferring or alienating the suit property till the final disposal of instant suit. f. That any other relief(s) this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and property under the circumstances." 4. Upon issuance of summons and notices, the claim of Plaintiff has seriously been contested by Objectors, who besides filing Counter-Affidavit to the main Injunction Application also filed CMA No.15222 of 2015 under Sections 151 and 94(e) Read With Order XVII Rule 3 of C.P.C., praying for dismissal of suit, as at the relevant time when this Application was filed, Plaintiff did not deposit the balance sale consideration as ordered on 08.09.2015 when the matter was first listed before the Court and ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of Plaintiff, by restraining Objectors from creating any third party interest in the subject property, so also handing over its peaceful possession. 5. Mr. Tariq Hussain, Advocate, has vehemently argued that present suit is maintainable because after depositing of the balance sale consideration in the shape of cash and property document, neither any default as alleged to have been committed by Plaintiff nor any violation of the Court orders; an amount of Rs.10 Million (Rupees



For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.


































 




































Tags

You may like these posts

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post