1989 PLP 360 (CLC)
ALLAUDDIN Applicant Versus Syed MUHAMMAD SHAKIR Defendant
| Citation | 1989 PLP 360 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Syed Abdur Rehman, J |
| Parties | ALLAUDDIN Applicant Versus Syed MUHAMMAD SHAKIR Defendant |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 360 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 360 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Syed Abdur Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 360 (CLC) (ALLAUDDIN Applicant Versus Syed MUHAMMAD SHAKIR Defendant). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- G . H . Malik for Applicant. Muhammad Ahmad for Respondent. Dates of hearing: 12th and 13th October, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑O. XXI, R. 11‑‑Execution application Judgment‑debtor raising objection to execution application in respect of decree obtained by decree‑holder to the effect that time was of the essence of the contract and decree‑holder not having got sale‑deed scribed on requisite stamp paper and not having asked judgment‑debtor to appear before Registrar and receive payment of sale amount within fifteen days had committed breach of agreement and was, therefore, no more entitled to ask for specific performance of agreement Evidence led by decree‑holder showed that he had issued a registered A.D. Notice to judgment‑debtor at his address but same was returned undelivered with endorsement refused and it was thereafter that decree‑holder filed execution application and deposited amount of consideration‑ Decree‑holder produced copy of notice wherein he had been informed that by his having failed to pay amount of sale within fifteen days compromise deed had been violated Compromise application which spoke about payment of sale amount did not mention that payment had to be made within fifteen days Contents of compromise application or order passed thereon and surrounding circumstances also not suggesting that time was essence of the contract but still it was expected that parties had to perform contract within reasonable time Held, sending of notice and filing of execution application and depositing amount showed that decree‑holder was vigilant and eager to perform his part of agreement and had complied with necessary obligations within reasonable time‑ Objection raised by judgment‑debtor overruled in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Mr. Iqbal Ahmad, Advocate. Mr. S. Mumtazuddin, Advocate. This order is to be read in conjunction with the earlier order of date. Since the amount of court‑fee has been paid by the plaintiff I accept the compromise and decree the suit in terms thereof. Court‑fee be purchased.
4. The first para. of the compromise application which speaks about the payment of Rs.40,000 does not mention that the payment was to be made within 15 days. The third para, which speaks of the execution and registration of sale‑deed, fixes the period of 15 days for the same i.e. execution and registration and it is in that context stated that it will be on payment of Rs.40.000 be[ore the Sub‑Registrar.
5. The contents of the compromise application or the orders passed thereon and the surrounding circumstances do not suggest that time D was essence of the contract but still it was expected that the parties had to perform that contract within a reasonable time. The sending of notice on 27‑8‑1988 and the filing of the execution application on 3‑8‑1978 and the deposit of the amount of Rs.40,000 on 1‑2‑1979 by him show that the Decree‑holder was vigilant and eager to perform his part of the agreement and had complied with the necessary obligations within reasonable time.
6. Under these circumstances I do not find any merit .in the objections raised by the Judgment‑Debtor. Hence I direct that the Decree‑holder shall get the draft Sale‑Deed prepared on requisite stamp paper within a week and present it before the Nazir. The Judgment‑Debtor shall appear before the Nazir on 27‑10‑1988 to accompany him to the Sub‑Registrar, failing which it will be presumed that he has no intention to obey the decree of the Court and in that case the Nazir shall get the Sale‑Deed registered without any further order of the Court. After the registration of the Sale‑Deed the Judgment‑Debtor will be at liberty to take away the balance, of the consideration deposited by the decree‑holder.. M . Y . H . / A‑429/ K ‑ Objection overruled.