1987 PLP 392(2) (SCMR)
RASHID KHAN alias MUHAMMAD RAFIQ KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 392(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S.A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | RASHID KHAN alias MUHAMMAD RAFIQ KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 392(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 392(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S.A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 392(2) (SCMR) (RASHID KHAN alias MUHAMMAD RAFIQ KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Samiuddin Sami, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th May, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 22‑5‑1985 passed in Second Civil Appeal No. 527 of 1971). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12‑‑Suit for specific performance and alternatively for damages partly decreed‑‑Appeal before High Court on question of damages awarded‑‑Appeal accepted and damages awarded on basis of difference between contracted price and market value of suit land‑‑Order impugned‑‑Petitioner not permitted to argue that he was entitled to specific performance of contract because limited nature of relief claimed before High Court had been awarded in accordance with law‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑The petitioner brought a suit in the Civil Court, Tando Allahyar for specific performance of an agreement of sale relating to an open plot of land and alternatively for damages in the sum of Rs.8,725 with interest. The suit was dismissed in toto by the learned trial Court. The petitioner filed an appeal against the dismissal of his suit which was allowed to the extent that the return of earnest money of Rs.1,500 and a further payment of Rs.3,000 was ordered. 2. A second appeal filed before the High Court by the petitioner was admitted for the examination of the limited question whether the first appellate Court while partly decreeing the suit for return of the part consideration should have also awarded damages for breach of the agreement. Thus, it was the question of award of damages alone which was raised before the learned High Court. After considering the facts and evidence in the case, the appeal of the petitioner was accepted and damages in the sum of Rs.4,225 were awarded. Besides interest was also awarded on the sum of Rs.4,500 at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till the amount was paid. The amount of damages was calculated by the learned High Court on the basis of difference between the contracted price and market value of the plot. 3. We heard the learned counsel who was unable to satisfy us that the measure of damages adopted by the learned High Court was not in accordance with law. The learned counsel in fact wanted to argue that the petitioner was entitled to specific performance of the contract. This question is, however, not open for consideration because of the limited nature of relief claimed by the petitioner before the High Court which has been awarded in accordance with law. 4.The petition has no merits and is dismissed. M. I. Leave refused.