 |
| Specific performance 2026 clc 377 |
سات سال بعد دائر کیا گیا مخصوص ادائیگی کا دعویٰ مسترد
تعارف
مقدمہ کے حقائق
سندھ ہائی کورٹ نے کیا قرار دیا؟
فیصلہ
اہم قانونی اصول
Must read judgment.
2026 CLC 377
[Sindh]
Before Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro and Mohammad Abdur Rahman, JJ
Messrs VISIONARY BALUCHISTAN MEDIA CORPORATION --Appellant
Versus
Mst. SHAHNAZ ABID and 2 others ---Respondents
High Court Appeal No. 374 and C.M.A. No. 3663 of 2022, decided on 7th October, 2025.
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
S5.12 & 22--Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.SS---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art. 113---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
O.VII, R.11---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell filed after a seven years delay-Time being essence of contract---Principle---Discretionary relief, granting of-Scope-Failure to deposit balance sale consideration at institution of suit---Impact on entitlement to relief stated---Brief facts wer were that the appellant (vendee) and respondent (vendor) entered into a sale agreement regarding suit property, under which only Rs.14,00,000/- of the agreed Rs.19 million sale consideration was paid, and the balance was required to be cleared under a compromise order stipulating payment by 07.07.2013-The appellant neither complied with the compromise terms nor made any further payment, and after several years filed suit for specific performance, which was rejected under O.VII R.11, C.P.C. as barred by limitation-The issue before the High Court was 'whether the appellant's suit for specific performance which was filed years after the agreed timelines and without payment of the remaining consideration, was maintainable in law and within limitation, so as as to to justify justify interference with the ne rejection rejection of of plaint and denial of discretionary relief?"---Held: Nothing by the appellant was articulated to explain such inordinate delay, alone making efforts to payment of remaining sale consideration in time---Single Judge had taken into account the fact that the contract between the parties was more than a decade old and worth of the subject property had meanwhile increased manifold; hence, such development Le. property getting hugely costly was sufficient to deny the discretionary relief to the appellant-On the point of limitation, it had been held by the Single Judge that the sale agreement was executed on 19.04.2012 and the plaint was presented on 09.11.2019 after seven years, whereas, under Art.113 of the Limitation Act, appe appellant had only three years to file suit for seeking enforcement of the contract from the date of refusal---Not only the suit was barred by time but because of failure of the appellant to adhere to the terms and conditions mentioned in the compromise order he had made himself disentitled to seek discretionary relief of specific performance by the respondent---Further, due to failure of appellant to deposit the remaining sale consideration in the Court at the time of instituting the suit, the case of the appellant seeking relief of specific performance got on weaker footings from the very inception---In the present case, relevant material showing genuine efforts of the appellant to adhere to his part of the agreement was lacking---Further, no just appellant to file the suit within time firstly, and secondly his failure to deposit the remaining sale consideration within time in the Court even-The plaint had been rightly rejected under O.VII, R.11 of C.P.C.-No illegality or error in the impugned order to justify its reversal was found--Present appeal was without any merit and was dismissed. no justification had been articulated to warrant in action of the
(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--
Ss.12 & 22-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.55---Time being essence of contract---Principle Scope---When the time is essence of the agreement, its violation will render the defaulting party disentitled to Court's interference in the shape of discretionary relief.
(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
---Ss.12 & 22-Specific performance of agreement to sell---Discretionary relief, grant of---Scope---The discretionary relief can be extended to a person whose actions are anchored in bona fide while pursuing a contract, and he is seen to be making genuine efforts to perform his part of the agreement---Anyone whose action speaks otherwise will not be held entitled to such a relief.
Anwar Hussain for Appellant.
Khalil Ahmed for Respondent No. 1.