P L D 2025 Lahore 572 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASIF — Appellant Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD HANIF — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2025 Lahore 572 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASIF — Appellant Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD HANIF — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2025 Lahore 572 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2025 Lahore 572 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2025 Lahore 572 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASIF — Appellant Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD HANIF — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Attiq-ur-Rehman Mughal for Respondent.
- 2. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Jalal, learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Courts below have failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction. He added that since the agreement was proved, therefore, refusal to grant specific performance is not justified. Conversely, Mr. Attiq-ur-Rehman Mughal, learned Advocate for the respondents has stated that discretion has been exercised on sound judicial principles and decree is affirmed in first appeal, thus, this Court should not interfere.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 12, 21(c) & 22
Agreement to sell, legality of
Description of subject property unclear
Effect
Concurrent findings of the courts below should not be interfered with by the High Court in second appeal if same are not contrary to law
The principal issue requiring determination in the present appeal was as to "whether the suit for specific performance could be decreed where the agreement to sell lacked reasonable certainty in terms of land description"
Facts, in brief, were that the appellant (vendee) filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement dated 21.04.2007, alleging that the predecessor (vendor) of the respondents had agreed to sell certain land
However, the land description was vague and lacked precise identification such as killa, square, or khasra numbers
Even the appellant's attorney could not recall these details of land in his testimony
Trial Court declined specific performance due to the uncertainty in the agreement's terms
The appeal before the first appellate court filed by the appellant was also dismissed
Appellant (vendee) then filed second appeal before the High Court, arguing that the agreement had been proven and should have been specifically enforced
Held: S. 21(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 does not permit to specifically enforce a contract the terms of which the court cannot find with reasonable certainty
In order to succeed in a suit for specific performance of a contract, claimant has to assert that a valid and enforceable contract existed between him and the other side beside clearly pleading the terms and conditions on the basis of which the contract was executed which he desired to be specifically performed
Specific performance is by no means an absolute right but one which rests entirely in judicial discretion and always with reference to facts of a particular case
Where Trial Court has exercised its discretion in one way, which is judicially exercised on sound principles and the decree is affirmed by the Appellate Court, then the High Court in second appeal should not interfere with this discretion, unless the same is contrary to law or usage having force of law
While refusing specific performance of the agreement the Trial Court exercised the discretion on sound and reasonable basis, which were upheld by the first appellate court and the same required no interference in second appeal before the High Court
The second appeal lacking any merit was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SULTAN TANVIR AHMAD, J.
On 22.06.2007 the appellant filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 21.04.2007 (the agreement ), which was contested by the predecessor of the respondents. After framing of issues the parties produced their evidence. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.04.2011 refused to allow specific performance of the agreement, however, the appellant was permitted to recover Rs. 50,000/- (earnest money) and Rs. 100,000/- in the shape of damages. Appeals Nos. 133 of 2011 and 139 of 2011 were filed, which were dismissed on 03.10.2013. Being aggrieved from the same, the present second appeal has been filed.
2. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Jalal, learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Courts below have failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction. He added that since the agreement was proved, therefore, refusal to grant specific performance is not justified. Conversely, Mr. Attiq-ur-Rehman Mughal, learned Advocate for the respondents has stated that discretion has been exercised on sound judicial principles and decree is affirmed in first appeal, thus, this Court should not interfere.
3. The agreement is on record as Exh. P-2. A perusal of the agreement reflects that the same does not provide any measurement of the land that was agreed to be sold. It simply stipulates that Rs.5,000/- per marla is fixed for residential property, whereas, the consideration for agriculture land subject to sale is Rs.280,000/-. It lacks description of land in shape of killa, square or khasra numbers. The land is not specified with any certainty. One Bashir Ahmad appeared as PW-1, being special attorney of the appellant, who stated that he even cannot recall khasra number of the suit land.
4. Section 21(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (the Act ) does not permit to specifically enforce a contract the terms of which the Court cannot find with reasonable certainty. In Muhammad Miskeen s case1 agreement not describing the property under sale by metes and bounds was refused to be enforced. It is settled that in order to succeed in a suit for specific performance of a contract, claimant has to assert a valid and enforceable contract existed between him and the other side beside clearly pleading the terms and conditions on the basis of which the contract was executed which he desired to be specifically performed2.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has made reference to section 22 of the Act, which provides that the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary and the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; but the discretion of the Court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principle and capable of correction by a Court of appeal. This provision is repeatedly interpreted and no cavil is left to the proposition that specific performance is by no means an absolute right but one which rest entirely in judicial discretion and always with reference to facts of a particular case. Where trial Court has, exercised its discretion in one way, which is judicially exercised on sound principles and the decree is affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, then this Court in second appeal should not interfere with this discretion, unless the same is contrary to law or usage having force of law3.
6. After hearing the arguments and examining the record, I am of the opinion that while refusing specific performance of the agreement the learned trial Court has exercised the discretion on sound and reasonable basis, which has been upheld by the learned first Appellate Court and the same requires no interference in second appeal. This appeal lacking any merit is dismissed. No order as to costs. UN/M-58/L Appeal dismissed. 1 Muhammad Miskeen v. District Judge Attock and others (2020 SCMR 406) 2 (i) Sheikh Akhtar Aziz v. Mst. Shabnam and others (2019 SCMR 524) (ii) Mian Muhammad Saleem and others v. Mst. Hameeda Begum and others (1987 SCMR 624) 3 Naseer Ahmed Siddique through Legal Heirs v. Aftab Alam and another (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 323)