1989 PLP 1114 (SCMR)
Mst. AJAIB KHANUM and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus KHALID RASHID and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1114 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. AJAIB KHANUM and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus KHALID RASHID and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1114 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1114 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1114 (SCMR) (Mst. AJAIB KHANUM and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus KHALID RASHID and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- CA. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 23rd November, 1987 in R.S.A. No.940 of 1978). Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.12‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Specific performance‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine; whether judgment of variance by High Court was sustainable m law.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs' side in a suit for specific performance, against the acceptance by the High Court, of respondents' two appeals with the result that the petitioners' suit stands dismissed in its entirety. As stated by the learned counsel the suit property belonged to the petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest (Fazal Mubeen). It was sold to the respondents' side with a condition of re‑sale. The respondents also agreed subsequently to re‑sell it to Fazal Mubeen by a properly executed agreement in this behalf. There was a third agreement also in which the agreement to sell to Fazal Mubeen was reiterated with some changes including that the price would be Rs.18,
000. However, the respondents' side having failed to perform the contract of sale a suit for specific performance was filed which was resisted by them on various grounds including the one, that one of the vendors was a minor The learned trial Court decreed half of the petitioners' claim rejecting the other half which related to the interest of one vendor who was stated to be minor. Two appeals were filed ‑ one by each side. The District Court allowed the appeal of the petitioners' side, dismissed the appeal of the respondents' side and decreed the suit in its entirety on payment of Rs.18,
000. This led to two appeals filed by the respondents' side in the High Court which having been accepted, leave to appeal has now been sought. After hearing the learned counsel who has reiterated the points urged in these petitions, we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to examine whether, the judgment of variance by the High Court is sustainable in law. Security‑‑Rs.2,500 m each case. Stay to continue subject to the furnishing of adequate security by the petitioners for mensum profits at the rate of Rs.500 per mensum (subject to all exceptions) to the satisfaction of the trial Court, within a month. M.BA./A‑490/S Leave granted.