1994 PLP 111 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑S. 12‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, OXXVI, R. 1‑‑‑Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale‑‑‑Grant of specific performance of agreement being discretionary relief, can be refused even in execution of agreement was proved‑‑‑All the Courts including Supreme Court had refused to exercise discretion in favour of plaintiffs‑‑‑No case for review had been made out. Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th October, 1993. SALEEM AKHTAR, J‑‑‑The petitioners have filed petition for review of judgment dated 11‑11‑1992 whereby civil appeal filed by them was dismissed.

2. The petitioners had filed suit for specific performance of agreement in. respect of sale of land, but they were unable to get any relief either from the trial Court or the Appellate Court and the High Court. In this case leave was granted to consider whether petitioners going to the office of Registrar on the appointed day in the hope that the sale‑deed would be registered in their favour and other efforts made by them would not constitute sufficient ground to hold that the petitioners were ready to perform their part of the contract. Plea so raised was not accepted and it was held throughout that the petitioners were never ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. In this regard the evidence has properly been appreciated and discussed in all the judgments.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the statement of Tehsildar who appeared as P.W.1 read with application Exh P.2 moved before him and his endorsement thereon were sufficient to establish that the petitioners were ready to perform their part of the agreement. This aspect has been dealt with in the judgment and the finding is against the petitioners. In review the same point cannot be agitated nor fresh appraisal of evidence can be made.

4. The learned counsel further contended that Azizur Rehman, one of the defendants/respondents had filed written statement and affidavit endorsing no objection to the grant of decree in favour of the petitioners. From the record it is clear that Azizur Rehman had filed three written statements. In the first one, which he disowned later, he had prayed for dismissal of the suit. The learned Judge of the High Court in revision petition filed by the petitioners has referred to the entire evidence and documents and discussed it at length. This contention even if accepted, would not improve the case of the petitioners as held in the judgment that the grant of specific performance of agreement is a discretionary relief which can be refused even if the execution of agreement is proved. In the facts and circumstances of the case all the Courts have refused to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners. No case for review has been made out. Petition is dismissed. AA./A‑1049/S Revision dismissed.