Specific Performance Upheld – Old Agreement Not a Bar, Readiness and Capacity Proven.
 |
| 2026 clc 49 |
Must read judgement.
2026 CLC 49
[Lahore]
Before Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, J
Malik PERVAIZ MAJEED SHAHZADA --Appellant
Versus
RIZWAN MALIK ---Respondent
R.S.A. No. 214 of 2015, decided on 7th October, 2024.
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
-Ss. 12 & 22-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5. 100-Specific performance of agreement to sell-Discretionary relief-Principle-Readiness to perform part of agreement-Proof-Second Appeal-Scope--Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below-Appellant / defendant entered into agreement with respondent/plaintiff regarding sale of suit property owned by him-On failure to get suit property transferred, respondent/plaintiff filed suit against appellant/ defendant-Suit was concurrently decreed in favour of respondent/plaintiff by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court-Appellant/defendant contended that the agreement pertained to year 2005 and after such long time the agreement could not be performed as it was a discretionary relief-Validity-Discretion is required to be exercised keeping in view facts and circumstances of each case and the terms of relevant agreement-Exercise must not be arbitrary and has to be based on sound and equitable reasons-Respondent/plaintiff instituted suit one day after the cut-off date-Respondent/plaintiff through his evidence remained successful in demonstrating with certainty that he had capacity to perform the agreement---Concerned branch manager produced ledger in Trial Court to show that through banking instrument respondent/plaintiff withdrew balance consideration on relevant date--Such evidence left no doubt that respondent/plaintiff had capacity to perform the agreement---Willingness of respondent/plaintiff respondent/plaintiff was reflected from prompt and immediate institution of suit and by that time no prejudice was caused to appellant/defendant but somehow he himself kept on delaying the matter-Both the Courts below had rightly exercised their discretion to grant the relief-Second appeal could only lie in High Court on the grounds that the decision was contrary to law; failure to determine some material issue of law, and substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or law for the time being in force which could possibly have emanated an error or slip-up in determination or decisiveness of the case on merits--High Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below as there was no illegality-Second appeal was dismissed.
Dr. Mian Anjum Habib and another v. Waseem Ahmed Khan and another 2014 SCMR 1621; Muhammad Abdur Rehman Qureshi v. Sagheer Ahmad 2017 017 SCMR 1696; Ms. Sara Bibi v. Muhammad Saleem and others PLD 2021 Islamabad 236; Leh Sagheer Lehrasap Khan and 3 others v. Muhammad Sarwar Khan and another 2002 YLR 3223; Taj Deen v. Muhammad Tufail and others 2015 YLR 2562; Muhammad Sarwar alias Babar v. Muhammad Yasin (Deceased) through LRs. and others 2024 MLD 467 and Shaukat Ali and 3 others v. Javeed Qureshi and 5 others 2002 CLC 1578 rel.
Muhammad Mehmood Chaudhary and Malik Muhammad Hanif for Appellant. Shahid Farooq Gondal, Rana Attiq Ur Rehman with Rizwan Malik for Respondent.