Readiness and Willingness in Specific Performance – Lahore High Court Decision (2025 CLC 513)
 |
| Readiness and Willingness in Specific Performance |
2025 CLC 513 – لاہور ہائیکورٹ ملتان بینچ کا فیصلہ
مختصر کہانی
شیخ خالد جاوید اور شمس الدین چشتی کے درمیان جائیداد کی خرید و فروخت کا معاہدہ ہوا۔ مدعی نے کچھ ایڈوانس رقم دی لیکن مقررہ تاریخ تک باقی رقم ادا نہ کی اور تقریباً ایک سال تک خاموش رہا۔ بعد میں مقدمہ دائر کیا مگر ٹرائل کورٹ کے دوران بھی وہ رقم جمع نہ کرا سکا۔ مدعا علیہ نے ایک مشروط پیشکش کی لیکن مدعی نے وہ بھی پوری نہ کی۔
اپیل کے دوران پہلی بار مدعی نے رقم جمع کرائی اور اپیلٹ کورٹ نے اس کے حق میں فیصلہ دے دیا۔ لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے اس فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیتے ہوئے کہا کہ مدعی شروع سے آخر تک معاہدے پر عمل کے لیے تیار اور راضی نہیں تھا، اس لیے Specific Performance کا حق دار نہیں۔ صرف ایڈوانس رقم واپس کرنے کا حکم دیا گیا۔
---
اہم نکات
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ مدعی نے مقررہ تاریخ اور ٹرائل کے دوران بیلنس رقم ادا نہ کر کے اپنی نااہلی ثابت کی۔
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ مدعی کا ایک سال خاموش رہنا اس کی نیک نیتی کے خلاف ہے۔
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ مدعا علیہ کی مشروط پیشکش، جسے مدعی نے قبول نہ کیا، اپیل میں مؤثر نہیں رہی۔
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ اپیلٹ کورٹ نے غلط طور پر اس پیشکش کو ’’اعتراف‘‘ سمجھ کر فیصلہ دیا۔
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ Specific Performance ایک اختیاری اور انصاف پر مبنی ریلیف ہے، اسے صرف اسی وقت دیا جا سکتا ہے جب مدعی کا رویہ دیانتدار ہو۔
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ مدعی کو صرف بیعانہ/ایڈوانس رقم واپس مل سکتی ہے، Specific Performance کا دعویٰ خارج ہوتا ہے۔
Must read Judgement
For2025 C L C 513
[Lahore (Multan Bench)]
Before Anwaar Hussain, J
Sheikh KHALID JAVAID ---Petitioner
Versus
SHAMAS UD DIN CHISHTI ---Respondent
Civil Revision No. 323 of 2022, decided on 28th February, 2024.
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----S. 12---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 54---Suit for specific performance of contract for immovable property---Cut-off date for payment of balance sale consideration---Conduct of the vendee for issuance of decree of specific performance---Relevancy---Failure of respondent/plaintiff to deposit the remaining sale consideration throughout the proceedings showing his lack of readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligation---Plea of pending proceedings before the National Accountability Bureau (NAB)---Unexplained delay in filing the suit---Effect---Conditional offer made by the petitioner/defendant during pendency of suit before Trial Court, became invalid owing to non-fulfillment by the respondent---Appellate
Court treating that offer as admission of the defendant and accepted the appeal of the respondent---Validity---Respondent entered into the agreement with the petitioner and thereafter, entangled the latter into litigation and avoided the payment of the balance consideration amount on one pretext or the other, meaning thereby that the respondent was neither willing nor ready to pay the balance amount of consideration and the Appellate Court below was not justified in relying on the admission of execution of the agreement by the petitioner before the Trial Court to decree the suit of the respondent---In fact, when the direction of the Trial Court was not complied with by the respondent, the Trial Court should have immediately proceeded to dismiss the suit---Conditional offer made by the petitioner before the Trial Court to decree the suit for specific performance of the contract, which was not accepted by the respondent did not remain valid at the appellate stage, thus, it was unjustified to pass the judgment and decree on the basis of an offer which no longer existed in favour of respondent, who had acted in a contumacious manner---Performance of the contract should not have been seen from the date when it was suitable to the respondent---To adjudge whether the respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the court had to take into consideration the conduct of the respondent prior as well as subsequent to the institution of the suit along with other attending circumstances---Amount of consideration which respondent had to pay to the petitioner must necessarily be proved to be available and right from the cut-off date set for completion of the contract till date of the decree, the respondent must prove that he was ready and had always been willing to perform his part of the contract---Conduct of the respondent had been far from fair and he had failed to make out a case for the grant of any equitable relief since his conduct amply showed that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract: neither when the suit was instituted; nor when the interim injunction was granted; nor throughout the proceedings before the Trial Court, and only deposited the amount, at the appellate stage, when it suited him---There was no explanation in the suit as to why the respondent remained mum for a period of almost one year after the cut-off-date and never acted promptly to institute the suit---Civil revision was allowed, in circumstances with a direction to return the earnest money already received by the petitioner.
Muhammad Asif Awan v. Dawood Khan and others 2021 SCMR 1270 and Muhammad Jehanzaib Khan v. Muhammad Rafique Khan and 2 others 2021 PLC (C.S.) 1435 Distinguished.
Hamood Mehmood v. Mst. Shabana Ishaque and others 2017 SCMR 2022 and M/s. Kuwait National Real Estate Company (Pvt) Ltd. and others v. M/s. Educational Excellence Limited and others 2020 SCMR 171 rel.
(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----S. 22---Jurisdiction of the courts to grant and refuse relief of specific performance---Scope---Jurisdiction of the Courts to issue a decree of specific performance is discretionary in nature as it is an equitable relief, thus, the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so.
Mrs. Mussarat Shaukat Ali v. Mrs. Safia Khatoon and others 1994 SCMR 2189, Muhammad Abdur Rehman Qureshi v. Sagheer Ahmad 2017 SCMR 1696 and Zakia Hussain and another v. Syed Farooq Hussain PLD 2020 SC 401 rel.
Malik Muhammad Akbar Bhutta for Petitioner along with Petitioner.
Muhammad Mehrban Ranjha for Respondent.
Dr. Ashraf Ali Qureshi for Applicant (in C.M. No. 2833 of 2022)
Popular articles
No comments:
Post a Comment