1990 PLP 390 (SCMR)
Mst. REHMOON MAI and 21 others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. RASOOL BIBI and 7 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 390 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. REHMOON MAI and 21 others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. RASOOL BIBI and 7 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 390 (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 1990 PLP 390 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 390 (SCMR) (Mst. REHMOON MAI and 21 others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. RASOOL BIBI and 7 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Inayat Ali Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and S. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 13‑4‑1985 of the Lahore High Court in R.S.A. No.25 of 1985). ‑‑‑S.12‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Specific performance of agreement‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider questions that agreement to sell having been found genuine and its validity not being in dispute, whether High Court was justified to have dismissed the revision merely on the ground that there was no consideration for sale, when in the circumstances of the case, payments made by petitioners of Government dues and the Abadkari done by the petitioners in accordance with the agreement could be treated as adequate consideration and if not so treated whether the decree could not be passed in favour of petitioners on payment of remaining consideration. or for partial relief either in the form of a part of land in dispute or in the form of the return off, aforementioned consideration by defendant and/or whether, for that purpose the relief sought could not be modified by Court.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiff side in a suit for specific performance; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Revision. The suit has been dismissed throughout. Learned counsel contended that the agreement to sell having been found genuine and its validity not being now in dispute, the High Court should not have dismissed the Civil Revision merely on the ground that there was no consideration for sale: According to him, the following could in the circumstances of this case be treated as consideration for sale:‑‑ (a) 'The payments made by the petitioners of the Government dues. (b) The "abadkari done by the petitioners in accordance with the agreement which they would not have done if there was no agreement. Learned counsel also contended that the point; whether, the afore‑noted items of consideration could not be treated as adequate consideration and if not; whether, the decree could not be passed in petitioners' favour on payment of the remaining consideration and/or for partial relief either in the form of a part of land in dispute or in the form of the return of the aforementioned consideration by the defendant; and, whether, for that purpose the relief sought could not be modified by the Court. The questions raised by the learned counsel require examination. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted. Security Rs. 5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to parties to file all essential documents. M.A.K./R‑115/S Leave granted.