2013 PLP 288 (CLC)

??????????? MUHAMMAD AZIM KHAN AFRIDI, J.

Muhammad. Khursheed? and? others? hereinafter? referred? to? as? the? petitioners? have? impugned? in? the? instant? revision,? judgment? and? decree? dated 6-5-2005, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Islamabad, vide which appeal of the petitioner against judgment and decree dated 31-3-2004, passed by learned Civil Judge Islamabad, was dismissed. 2.???????? Brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that Muhammad Zaman predecessor of the petitioners entered into an agreement to sell, in the year 1994, in respect of Plot No.558 with respondent Abdul Rehman for purchase of the same against a sale, consideration of Rs.195,

000. That the said respondent, in spite of repeated? requests? of? the? predecessor? of? the? petitioners,? failed? to perform? his? part? of? contract? and? compelled? the? petitioners? to? seek declaration,? permanent? injunction? and? specific? performance? of contract, on the basis of agreement to sell dated 30-5-1994 by instituting a civil suit. 3.???????? The learned trial Court, after recording evidence and hearing the contested parties, partially, decreed the suit. Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 31-3-2004, appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge, Islamabad, which was heard and dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 6-5-2005 by the Additional District Judge, Islamabad, and hence the instant revision petition. 4.???????? Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the predecessor of the petitioners was a valid purchaser of the said Plot No.558 allotted to respondent No.1 by the CDA in lieu of acquisition of land. That the respondent No.1 sold the same to the predecessor of the petitioners? vide? the? sale? agreement? deed? 30-5-1994,? Exh.P.1,? and? as? such? the? petitioners? became? entitled? to? claim? the? said? plot? and enforce? the? said? sale? agreement? deed? through? the? process? of? Court.? That? the? said? plot? was? illegally? cancelled? by? the? CDA Authorities? though? the? Agrofarm? illegally? given? to? the? said respondent? in? lieu? of? the? said? acquisition? of? his? property? was? liable to cancellation. 5.???????? I have heard ex parte arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 6.???????? It is not disputed that the suit plot was allotted to respondent No.1 by CDA. After allotment of the same respondent No.1 entered into an agreement to sell with the predecessor of the petitioners but meanwhile? the? same? was,? rightly? or? wrongly,? cancelled? from? his name by CDA. A contract, though valid and enforceable, becomes invalid? when? a? party? to? such? contract? becomes? incapable? to? perform? his? part,? due? to? reasons? beyond? his? governance,? command or? control.? The overt? act? of? CDA,? i.e.? cancellation? of? the? plot allotted? to? respondent? No.1,? is? undoubtedly? an? act? beyond? control? of? respondent? No.1.? Thus? the? contract? of? sale,? valid? at? the? first instance,? became? void? the? moment? it? ceased? to? be? enforceable. Needless to mention that a void contract would not be enforceable under the law and a suit for enforcement of a void contract would not be entertainable. 7.???????? Revisional jurisdiction conferred by section 115 C.P.C., authorizes a Court exercising such jurisdiction to interfere, disrupt and up-set an order or judgment when a subordinate court exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law or fails to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or, while exercising jurisdiction so vested commits illegality or material irregularity. 8.???????? In the case in hand, jurisdiction vested in the Court was neither exercised by the learned Appellate Court illegally nor with material irregularity and as such the same warrants no interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. 9.???????? For the reasons spelled out above, the revision petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs. SAK/129/Isl.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.