P L D 2009 Karachi 390 (PLP)
RASHID NASEEM through Attorney — Appellant Versus Mrs. AMNIA FAHIM and another — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2009 Karachi 390 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RASHID NASEEM through Attorney — Appellant Versus Mrs. AMNIA FAHIM and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2009 Karachi 390 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2009 Karachi 390 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2009 Karachi 390 (PLP) (RASHID NASEEM through Attorney — Appellant Versus Mrs. AMNIA FAHIM and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.12 & 19
Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3
Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale
Plaintiff agreed to purchase the property in question and out of total sale consideration he paid considerable amount
Defendants having failed to transfer the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, despite his request, plaintiff filed suit for specific performance, praying for a decree of special damages against defendants and damages on the amount paid by the plaintiff with 30% compensation thereon
Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the suit by holding that the relief of specific performance was an equitable relief and. since the plaintiff had failed to deposit balance sale consideration, same had disentitled the plaintiff for the relief of specific performance of the contract
Apart from claiming relief for specific performance, the plaintiff had claimed damages and compensation in respect of the amount paid by the plaintiff as advance part payment
Even if accepted that failure to pay balance sale consideration at the initial stage would tantamount to disentitle equitable relief of specific performance, the plaintiff at least was entitled to damages, if any, proved by him
Under S.19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, if court would decide that specific performance ought not to be granted and contract had been broken by the defendant, the court could award compensation, if the plaintiff was entitled to it
Impugned order was set aside and matter was remanded for decision on merits.
Judgment & Decree
Repeatedly notices were issued to the respondents, but returned unserved. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the respondents were declared ex parte before the learned Single Judge and the matter was proceeded in their absence. In view of the above, we heard Mr. Haq Nawaz Talpur, learned counsel for the appellant. Brief facts for the purpose of deciding the appeal are that the appellant filed suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 18-3-2003 in respect of Property, bearing No.117, measuring 2000 square yards, situated at Popular Avenue, Phase-VI, Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority, Karachi. The appellant agreed to purchase the property in question for the total sale consideration of Rs.27,000,000, out of which a sum of Rs.500,000 was paid at the time of execution of agreement of sale, a further sum of Rs.2,000 was paid on 20-4-2004 and thereafter a new agreement was executed between the parties on 20-4-2004. The respondents then failed to transfer the property in question in favour of the appellant despite his request and as such the appellant filed suit for specific performance, praying for a decree of special damages against respondent No.1 in the sum of Rs.50,000,000 and damages on the amount paid by the appellant with 30% compensation thereon. The learned Single Judge, when the matter was listed for further orders, dismissed the suit by holding that the relief of specific performance is an equitable relief and since the appellant has failed to deposit balance sale consideration, the same disentitled the appellant for the relief of specific performance of the contract. We have gone through the documents on record as well as memo. of plaint, from the perusal whereof it appears that apart from claiming relief for specific performance, the appellant has claimed damages and compensation in respect of the amount paid by the appellant as advance part payment. Even if for any reason if it is accepted that failure to pay balance sale consideration at the initial stage tantamount to disentitle equitable relief of specific performance, the appellant at least was entitled for damages, if any, proved by him. Section 29 of the Specific Relief Act, bars the plaintiff's right to sue for compensation for breach of contract or part thereof, on dismissal of a suit for specific performance of a contract or part thereof. Under section 19 of the Specific Relief Act if Court decides that specific performance ought not be granted, and contract has been broken by the defendant, the Court can award compensation, if the plaintiff is entitled to it. For the foregoing reason the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to decide the suit on merits. The appeal in the above terms stands disposed of. H.B.T./R-13/K Case remanded.