1989 PLP 1229 (SCMR)
TAJ DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. KALSOOM BIBI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1229 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | TAJ DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. KALSOOM BIBI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1229 (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 1229 (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 1229 (SCMR) (TAJ DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. KALSOOM BIBI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir A.Mujahid, Bar‑at‑Law, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 7‑3‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Civil Revision No.271 of 1982). ‑‑‑S.12‑‑Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S.19‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑Petitioner agreed to sell land to Respondent which he had purchased from Provincial Government in auction‑ Subsequently a dispute arose between the parties and respondent's suit for specific performance was decreed throughout‑‑Contention of petitioner that relief claimed by respondent being for the refund of the amount paid there was no need for granting the decree for specific performance and further that respondent was at fault for not performing the contract‑‑Contention raised was not urged before the High Court where question about the application of S. 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 was dealt with adequately‑‑Supreme Court, in the circumstances, declined to entertain the points not pressed in the High Court‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant against the dismissal by the High Court of his civil revision; which had arisen out of a decree for specific performance in respondent's favour. Petitioner agreed to sell the land in dispute, which he had purchased from the Provincial Government in auction. Subsequently a dispute arose between the parties and the respondent's suit for specific performance has been decreed throughout. Learned counsel has contended that the relief claimed by respondent was for the refund of the amount paid. Thus there was no need for granting the impugned decree. He has also contended that the respondent was at fault for not performing the contract. The contentions raised now, were not urged before the High Court. The question about the application of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act raised then, was dealt with adequately. In the circumstances of the case, we decline to entertain the points not pressed in the High Court. Leave to appeal is refused. If some amount is to be deposited or paid by the respondent in pursuance of the impugned decree, she might seek time from the trial Court; which shall allow reasonable time. M.BA./T‑39/S Leave refused.