1991 PLP 1298 (SCMR)
Dr. ZULFIQAR HAIDER — Petitioner Versus RIAZ MAHMUD — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1298 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, |
| Parties | Dr. ZULFIQAR HAIDER — Petitioner Versus RIAZ MAHMUD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1298 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1298 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1298 (SCMR) (Dr. ZULFIQAR HAIDER — Petitioner Versus RIAZ MAHMUD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.H. Najf, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz Advocate-on- Record for Petitioner.
- Zafar Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate -on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th October, 1989.
- A.H. Najf, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner.
- Zafar Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate -on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 8-7-1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in RFA No. 140 of 1983).
S.12
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell
Suit was decreed by Trial Court but decree was partly modified by High Court in appeal i.e., part of land which had been sold out by petitioner to the second defendant subsequent to sale agreement was excluded from the decree as said sale was not challenged by the Respondent-- Question arising for consideration was as to whether the original agreement for sale after the inconistent decree had remained intact which could be specifically performed
Leave to appeal was granted to consider the question.
Judgment & Decree
A.H. Najf, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner. Zafar Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate -on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th October, 1989. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑‑There, is a dispute in regard to the decree for specific performance of an oral agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent on 13‑9‑1978. In pursuance of this oral agreement, the petitioner received Rs.40,000 as earnest money out of the sale consideration of Rs.3,00,
000. The property agreed to be sold is a plot of land bearing No.16‑D, Model Town, Lahore, and measuring 16 kanals and 10 sq. ft. One of the stipulations of the agreement was that the balance of sale price would be paid within three months and it was only upon the payment of the balance price within three months that the sale‑deed would be executed. The respondent sent a notice on 8‑9‑1979 stating therein that the petitioner had refused to perform the contract as the price had appreciated, and, accordingly, informed him that he would take legal proceedings against him. The petitioner in his reply dated 14‑9‑1979 stated that the amount had been confiscated as the respondent had failed to pay the balance of the price and to get the sale‑deed registered. However, before the dispute arose, the petitioner sold on 18‑3‑1979 to Faheem‑ul‑Islam 3 kanals out of the total area of 6 kanals and 10 sq. ft. Both the petitioner and Faheem‑ul‑Islam were joined as defendants in the suit filed by the respondent for the specific performance of the oral agreement, which was decreed by the trial Court on 5th of June, 1983. On appeal to the High Court, the decree was partly modified to the extent of 3 kanals only while as to the remaining 3 kanals and 10 sq. ft., the decree was maintained. The respondent did not file any appeal to challenge the sale in favour of Faheem‑ul‑Islam of 3 kanals of land which has now assumed finality. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the original agreement for sale by the inconsistent decree has remained intact which could be specifically performed. Accordingly, leave is granted to the petitioner. Security for costs Rs.2,
500. In the meantime the execution of the decree ‑qua 3 kanals 10 sq. ft. is stayed till the decision of the appeal. AA./Z‑84/S Leave granted.