1983 PLP 1187 (SCMR)
KHUDA BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1187 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | KHUDA BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1187 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1187 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1187 (SCMR) (KHUDA BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Munir Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme -Court instructed by S, Wajid Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner,
- Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 1st February, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 10-12-1980 of the Lahore High Court passed In Regular Second Appeal No. 632 of 1979). --Art. 185(3)-Contract of adalapi-Breach of contract by peti tioner-Respondent getting possession of land through suit--Courts below concurrently finding that petitioner failed to comply with terms of agreement and also did not produce evidence to justify award of compensation-Held, case not fit one for interference.
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The respondent who owned 84 kanals of land in Mauza Sikandarabad, Tehsil Shujabad District Multan, contract of adalapi with the petitioner by a registered agreement 11-11-1963 for planting a mango orchard. The conditions were in the following words: The parties also entered into a Mustajri agreement. The respondent brought a suit for possession on 6-1-1971 on the ground that the peti tioner had failed to comply with the terms of the agreement. The suit was decreed by the trial Court against which the petitioner's first appeal failed where after he preferred a second appeal before the Lahore High Court, which, too, was dismissed by the impugned order dated 10-12-1980.
2. Two points had been raised before the High Court: Firstly, that time for growing the orchard was not the essence of the contract slid as such the possession of the land could not be delivered even after the expiry of the period of seven years stipulated therein and, secondly, that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the improvements made in the land. The contentions were repelled as the High Court came to the view that "the appellant was bound to develop the land and convert the same into a full-fledged garden within seven years by the end of 1971 and on his failure to do so the respondent had a right to rescind the contract" and that according to the findings of the two Courts below the petitioner "had failed to prove the cost of any improvement made on the land".
3. The smtye contentions, as had been raised in the High Court, are urged Wore us and it has been added that the decree of dispossession could not have been passed as the petitioner was also a lessee in respect of the land under Mustajri agreement and that there being evidence of some 176 plants existing on the land, he should have been compensated. for the same:- The points raised are basically of fact. The Courts below have concurrently found that the petitioner had failed to comply with the terms of the agreement and that he had also not produced evidence to ,justify award of compensation. In the circumstances, we do not find it a fit case for interference with the order of the High Court. The petition is dismissed. S. Q. Leave refused.