1989 PLP 1456 (SCMR)
ABDUL AZIZ Petitioner Versus FAZAL KARIM and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1456 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL AZIZ Petitioner Versus FAZAL KARIM and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1456 (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 1989 PLP 1456 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1456 (SCMR) (ABDUL AZIZ Petitioner Versus FAZAL KARIM and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Inayat Hussain Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22nd May, 1983 in Regular Second Appeal No.156 of 1983). ‑‑‑S.12‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Suit for specific performance of contract dismissed by Trial Court but decreed by First Appellate Court, finding whereof was maintained by High Court in second appeal‑‑Vendor‑defendant had agreed to sell land to first vendee/plaintiff and received earnest money‑‑Sale was to be completed after vendor had obtained proprietary rights for the land from the Authority‑‑First vendee transferred his rights under the agreement to sell, to subsequent vendee‑‑Vendor refused to comply with his part of agreement whereupon the first vendee and the subsequent vendee jointly instituted suit for the specific performance of said agreement‑‑Suit though dismissed by Trial Court was ultimately decreed in appeals‑‑Vendor's contention was that as the first vendee/plaintiff had taken the balance amount from the subsequent vendee, he should be taken to have abandoned his claim for specific performance of agreement as not interested m the disputed land and subsequent vendee being not a party to the agreement of sale had no locus stand to file suit for specific performance of agreement‑‑Such contention had also been raised and had been attended to by the High Court which correctly arrived at the conclusion that mere fact that first vendee had chosen to transfer his rights in favour of subsequent vendee did not imply that he had abandoned his claim‑‑Such vendee having paid more than half of the consideration money had instituted suit for specific performance alongwith the subsequent vendee‑‑No case was made out for interference by the Supreme Court‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court. Lahore dated 22nd May, 1983 whereby the RSA of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner entered into an agreement with Fazal Karim respondent for the sale of agricultural land in dispute for a sum of Rs.36,
000. He received Rs.18,000 as earnest money. The sale was to be completed after the petitioner had obtained proprietary rights for the said land from the Thal Development Authority. Later he received from the said respondent another sum of Rs.2.721 towards the consideration on 29th July, 1972. The balance which was yet to be paid was Rs.15,
279. Then Fazal Karim respondent is stated to have transferred his rights under the agreement to Fateh Sher respondent. When the petitioner refused to comply with his part of the agreement, both the respondents jointly instituted a suit for the specific performance of the said agreement. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the Additional District Judge reversed the judgment holding that there was no bar to the parties entering into an agreement to sell which would take effect after the seller had obtained proprietary rights in the suit land. Accordingly decree for specific performance was granted in favour of the respondents. Thereafter the RSA of the petitioner was dismissed by the. High Court. Hence the present petition. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner before us was that Fazal Karim respondent had taken the balance amount from Fateh Sher respondent and that in this sense he should be taken to have abandoned his claim for specific performance of the agreement as not interested in the disputed land. And that so far as Fateh Sher respondent was concerned he was not party to the agreement for sale and therefore had no locus standi to file suit for specific performance of the said agreement. This argument had also been raised and had been attended to by learned Single Judge who correctly arrived at the conclusion that the mere fact that Fazal Karim respondent had chosen to transfer his rights in favour of Fateh Sher respondent did not imply that he had abandoned his claim. He had not only paid more than half of the consideration money to the petitioner but had also instituted the suit for specific performance alongwith the other respondent. In the light of the above discussion no case is made out for interference in the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. A.A./A‑472/S Petition dismissed.