1989 PLP 1469 (SCMR)
Ch. MUHAMMAD SAEED and others Petitioners Versus Haji FAZAL MUHAMMAD Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1469 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD SAEED and others Petitioners Versus Haji FAZAL MUHAMMAD Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1469 (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 1469 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1469 (SCMR) (Ch. MUHAMMAD SAEED and others Petitioners Versus Haji FAZAL MUHAMMAD Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- M. A. Oadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th March,1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 29‑5‑1985 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in FA.O. No.30 of 1985) ‑‑‑S. 12‑‑Suit for‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Agreement to sell the property‑‑Passing of earnest money‑‑Suit for specific performance‑ Compromise decree‑‑Respondent was required to pay remaining amount of consideration and he made the deposit on 8‑6‑1981‑‑Said amount, on the request of the petitioner, was placed in a profit earning account in a Bank‑‑Sale‑deed for same reasons could not be executed till 24‑4‑1985 and it was registered or 4‑5‑1985‑‑Petitioner thus withdrew the amount in question thereafter‑‑High Court affirmed the decision of First Appellate Court that profit which the depose had earned while it remained with the Bank should go to the respondent‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contention that High Court as well as Trial Court were in error in holding that the respondent was entitled to the profit which accrued even after the execution of the sale‑deed and delivery of possession of the property to respondent.
Judgment & Decree
SHAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑By an agreement dated 5‑10‑1981, the petitioners agreed to sell a shop to the respondent for a sum of Rs.2,80,
000. The petitioners received Rs.22,000 on two occasions by way of earnest money and advance payment towards the price of the shop. On 11‑3‑1981, the respondent filed a suit for specific performance. It ended in a compromise decree in favour of the respondent. Under the terms of the decree the respondent was required to pay the remaining amount of consideration, that is, Rs.2,58,000 by 7‑5‑1981. Nevertheless the respondent filed a regular first appeal in the High Court. The High Court extended the time for deposit till 14‑6‑1981. The respondent made the deposit on 8‑6‑1981. On the request of the petitioner this amount was placed in a profit earning account in a Bank. For some reason the sale‑deed could not be executed till 24‑4‑1985. It was registered on 4‑5‑1985. It was thereafter that the petitioners withdrew the amount deposited in the Bank. A question arose as to which of the parties was entitled to receive the profit which the deposit had earned while it remained with the Bank. The learned trial Court held that it should be paid to the respondent. Its decision in this regard was affirmed by the High Court in the first appeal. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that the High Court as well as 1 the trial Court were in error in holding that the respondent was entitled to the profit which accrued even after the execution of the sale‑deed and delivery of t possession of the shop to the respondent. This contention needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,
000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. This being a short matter it should be listed for hearing in the current year. M.BA./N‑833/S Leave granted.