1989SCMR445 (PLP)
WAHEED KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NAWAB BIBI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR445 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | WAHEED KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NAWAB BIBI‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR445 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR445 (PLP)?
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: 1989SCMR445 (PLP) (WAHEED KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NAWAB BIBI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.M. Masud, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S.Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Farooq Hasan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 18th May, 1982 in R.SA. No.384 of 1975). (a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.37‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Specific performance of contract‑‑Petitioner executing agreement to sell property and receiving earnest money later failed to honour his commitment‑‑Suit for recovery of possession through specific performance of contract filed by respondent 3 years after the date of agreement‑‑Plea that no time was specified in the alleged agreement and that delay was to the disadvantage of petitioner/vendor, not entertained‑‑Earnest money having been voluntarily received in part performance of contract, suit might have been filed by respondent when petitioner had failed to honour his commitment‑‑Petition being without substance, leave to appeal refused. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.37‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Unanimous finding of three Courts‑‑Interference with‑‑Suit for specific performance of contract‑‑Agreement to sell executed by petitioner and earnest money received‑‑Petitioner failed to honour his commitment‑‑Respondent's suit for recovery of possession through specific performance of contract decreed and decision upheld by High Court‑ Courts below as well as High Court being unanimous that petitioner had no case, petition for leave to appeal was held without substance and dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J‑‑This petition for leave is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 18 May, 1982 whereby the R.SA. of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that an agreement to sell upper portion of the disputed property was made by the petitioner with Mst. Nawab Bibi respondent on 15th November, 1965. In this agreement to sell, the petitioner agreed to sell the said portion of the property in dispute to the respondent for Rs.8,000 and he. received a sum of Rs.100 as earnest money through receipt. The deed of agreement executed on 15th November, 1965 as well as receipt are part of the record. Since the petitioner failed to honour his commitment the respondent instituted a suit on 12th November, 1968 to recover possession of the said property. The petitioner denied having agreed to sell the said property to the respondent or having executed any deed of agreement. The trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent for possession through specific performance of the contract of sale of the upper portion of the said property. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional District Judge and his R.SA. before the Lahore High Court also met the same fate. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before us that it was not the respondent who had made an agreement to sell with the petitioner but her son, Therefore he had not entered into any such agreement with the respondent. This argument had been held to be without any force as the respondent's son was her Mukhtar and had made an agreement to sell with the petitioner in that capacity It was next submitted that no time was specified in the alleged agreement ands that this was to the disadvantage of the petitioner. 1t was pointed out that although the agreement was entered into in 1965, the respondent instituted the suit 3 years thereafter in 1968. This argument of the learned counsel is also without any force as he has himself voluntarily received Rs.100 as earnest money and issued a receipt to that effect under the said agreement. Thus the earnest money was received in part performance of the contract. The suit might have been filed by the respondent when the petitioner had failed to honour his commitment. In any case the Courts below as well as the High Court are unanimous that the petitioner had no case. In that view of the matter we do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. M.I./W‑34/S Petition dismissed.