2015 PLP 516 (YLR)

ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.

This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 25-9-2013 passed by learned Civil Judge Lahore whereby respondent was allowed to add plea for compensation in its suit for specific performance.

2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the permission sought for by the respondent to add plea for compensation could not be allowed before concluding that respondent is entitled to the relief for specific performance of the contract dated 6-12-2010; that the impugned order dated 25-9-2013 is against law and facts, illegal, without adhering to the facts of the case, without jurisdiction, untenable and liable to set aside.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. Succinctly facts leading to this Civil Revision are that respondent lodged a suit for specific performance of the contract dated 6-12-2010 against the petitioner on 9-4-2011. During the pendency of the suit respondent lodged an application under section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 which was accepted and the respondent was allowed to add the plea for compensation in his suit for specific performance.

5. At the outset it may be expedient to reproduced the provisions of section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, section 73 of the Contract Act 1872 and section 58 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which read as below:-- SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1877: "

19. Power to award compensation in certain cases:--Any person suing for the specific performance of a contract may also ask for compensation for its breach, either in addition to, or in substitution for, such performance. If in any such suit the Court decides that specific performance ought not to be granted, but that there is a contract between the parties which has been broken by the defendant and that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for that breach, it shall award him compensation accordingly. If in any such suit the Court decides that specific performance ought to be granted, but that it is not sufficient to satisfy the justice of the case, and that some compensation for breach of the contract should also be made to the plaintiff, it shall award him such compensation accordingly. Compensation awarded under this section may be assessed in such manner as the Court may direct." CONTRACT ACT, 1872: "

73. Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract:- When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract:- When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge is entitled to received the same compensation from the party in default as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract." SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930: "

58. Specific performance:- Subject to the provisions of Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, in any suit for breach of contract to deliver specific or ascertained goods, the Court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of the plaintiff, by its decree direct that the contract shall be performed specifically, without giving the defendant the option of retaining the goods on payment of damages. The decree may be unconditional, or upon such terms and conditions as to damages, payment of the price or otherwise, as the Court may deem just, and the application of plaintiff may be made at any time before the decree."

6. Above quoted provisions in different Acts have bearing on the same subject. Sale of Goods Act, 1930 being a legislation later in time than the Contract Act, 1872 and Specific Relief Act, 1877 do not debar an aggrieved party from raising the plea of compensation while seeking specific performance of the contract. Needless to say that as per principle of interpretation of statutes it is presumed that while framing a new enactment legislature is well aware of the law in the field. It is an established principle of interpretation of statutes that provisions in different Acts on the same subject may be read together in a complementary manner so that they do not create contradictions in the same field. Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 contemplates that any person suing for the specific performance of a contract may also ask for compensation for its breach, either in addition to, or in substitution for, such performance. In view of the above respondent's plea seeking compensation in addition to the specific performance of the contract cannot be termed as illegal. I do not find any legal infirmity, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Petitioner therefore has no case to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

7. For the above reasons this Civil Revision having no merit is dismissed in limine. MH/Z-2/L Revision dismisse