2011 SCMR 958 (PLP)
ANWAR SAJID — Petitioner Versus ABDUL RASHID KHAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 958 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rabbani and Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, JJ |
| Parties | ANWAR SAJID — Petitioner Versus ABDUL RASHID KHAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 958 (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 2011 SCMR 958 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ghulam Rabbani and Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 958 (PLP) (ANWAR SAJID — Petitioner Versus ABDUL RASHID KHAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Qadir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Aziz Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Raja Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Waheed Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.
- 2. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment and the judgment passed by learned trial Court. Also, we have seen the evidence available before us. During the course of their oral submissions, it came to light that an amount of Rs.40,50,000 was to be paid by the petitioner as the remaining part of consideration by the 'cut off date viz. 15-9-2002 in which he failed. On his request, time for payment was extended upto 23-12-2002, but the petitioner eventually made the payment on 3-1-2005 i.e., two years after extended time. This reflects that the petitioner was not ready and prepared to pay the amount by the cut off date and even after the extended time, he admittedly failed to perform his part as per the contract. Learned counsel for petitioner took a plea that since the respondent was bound to show to him the documents ready on the cut off date before the concerned officer of Defence Housing, Authority which condition, the latter failed to fulfil, the petitioner could not be held responsible to have not performed his part of contract. We are not persuaded to accept this plea of learned counsel. Petitioner has, in the first place, to stand on his own legs and to show his bona fides that on the stipulated date he was himself present before the concerned officer ready with money payable to the other side and that being so abiding by the terms and conditions of contract, found the seller absent. In this nothing was brought to our notice to lean on the side of petitioner. Admittedly, there are two concurrent findings going against the petitioner. That being so, the petition fails.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 7-8-2007 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi in H.C.A. No. 136 of 2002.).
S. 12
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)
Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale
Leave to appeal was sought against the judgment passed by High Court, whereby appeal of the petitioner assailing dismissal of his suit for specific performance qua the suit property, was dismissed
Remaining part of amount of consideration was to be paid up to specified date by the petitioner, but he failed to pay the same even after extended date and time
Counsel for the petitioner took the plea that since the respondent was bound to show to him the documents ready on the cut off date before, the concerned officer, but he having failed to do so, petitioner could not be held responsible to have not performed his part of contract
Plea of counsel for the petitioner, could not be accepted, as petitioner, in the first place, had to stand on his own legs and to show his bona fide that on the stipulated date he was himself present before concerned officer ready with money payable to the other side abiding by the terms and conditions of contract arrived at between the parties, but he failed to do that
Two concurrent findings being against the petitioner, his petition for leave to appeal failed.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM RABBANI, J.
Leave is sought to appeal against the judgment dated 7-8-2007 passed by a learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby the appeal of petitioner assailing dismissal of his suit for specific performance qua the suit property, was dismissed.
2. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment and the judgment passed by learned trial Court. Also, we have seen the evidence available before us. During the course of their oral submissions, it came to light that an amount of Rs.40,50,000 was to be paid by the petitioner as the remaining part of consideration by the 'cut off date viz. 15-9-2002 in which he failed. On his request, time for payment was extended upto 23-12-2002, but the petitioner eventually made the payment on 3-1-2005 i.e., two years after extended time. This reflects that the petitioner was not ready and prepared to pay the amount by the cut off date and even after the extended time, he admittedly failed to perform his part as per the contract. Learned counsel for petitioner took a plea that since the respondent was bound to show to him the documents ready on the cut off date before the concerned officer of Defence Housing, Authority which condition, the latter failed to fulfil, the petitioner could not be held responsible to have not performed his part of contract. We are not persuaded to accept this plea of learned counsel. Petitioner has, in the first place, to stand on his own legs and to show his bona fides that on the stipulated date he was himself present before the concerned officer ready with money payable to the other side and that being so abiding by the terms and conditions of contract, found the seller absent. In this nothing was brought to our notice to lean on the side of petitioner. Admittedly, there are two concurrent findings going against the petitioner. That being so, the petition fails.
3. Considering the above, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed. Leave refused. H.B.T./A-108/SC Leave refused.