2010 PLP 81 (CLC)
SALAHUDDIN CHAUHAN — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 81 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SALAHUDDIN CHAUHAN — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 81 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 81 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 81 (CLC) (SALAHUDDIN CHAUHAN — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12
Scope
Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of disputed property on the ground that he had paid earnest money in the sum of Rs.15,25,000 and an additional amount of Rs.2.4 million subsequently, for purchase of disputed property
Defendant contested suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to pay the balance amount despite having received legal notice and that the time was the essence of the agreement
Trial Court granted an interim injunction to the plaintiff
Agreement to sell was admitted by both parties and receipt of an earnest money was also not denied by the defendant
Whether or not time was the essence of the agreement required deeper probe which could only be undertaken after recording of evidence
Prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff had been made out
In case the defendant was not restrained from alienating the suit property during pendency of the suit the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and possibility of multiplicity of proceedings could not be ruled out
High Court dismissed first appeal in limine with clarification that the observations made in the order by High Court were only of a tentative nature and should not affect the merits of the case.
Judgment & Decree
IJAZ-UL-AHSAN, J.
The appellant assails the order dated 12-9-2009 passed by a learned Civil Judge at Gujranwala, in a suit for specific performance.
2. It is averred in the suit that the parties had entered into an agreement for sale of immovable property. The agreed, price was a sum of Rs.4.5 million. It was alleged by the respondent that he had paid earnest money in the sum of Rs.15,25,000 which fact is not denied by the appellant. It is also not denied that the respondent is in possession of the suit property although the position taken by the appellant is that such possession was not given pursuant to the agreement to sell. According to the petitioner respondent was in possession in his capacity as a tenant. The respondent also alleged that he has paid an additional sum of Rs.2.4 million subsequently, the petitioner denies receipt of any additional amount.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent had failed to pay the balance amount despite having received legal notices and that time was of the essence of the agreement. He argues that in these circumstances the learned lower Court was not justified in issuing an interim injunction. 3A. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the documents attached with this appeal. I find that the question whether or not time was of the essence needs deeper probe which can only be undertaken after recording of the evidence. Keeping in view the fact that the agreement to sell is admitted by both sides and receipt of earnest money in the sum of Rs.15,25,000 is also not denied by the appellant, a prima facie case in favour of the respondent has been made out. In case the appellant is not restrained from alienating the suit property during pendency of the suit for specific performance, the respondent would suffer irreparable loss and the possibility of multiplicity of proceedings cannot be ruled out. The respondent being in possession, the balance of convenience also leans in favour of the respondent.
4. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gujranwala. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. It is, however, clarified that the observations made in this order are only of a tentative nature and shall not affect the merits of the case. M. U. Y./S-267/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.