1989 PLP 1404 (SCMR)
GHULAM AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus SHEIKH and 5 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1404 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus SHEIKH and 5 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1404 (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 1404 (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 1404 (SCMR) (GHULAM AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus SHEIKH and 5 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. M. Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 28‑1‑19 4 of the Lahore High Court Bench in C. R No‑382 of 1983) ‑‑‑S.4Z‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Suit for specific perormance of an agreement for sale of property was decreed‑‑Petitioner/decree‑holder moved application before Trial Court for permission to deposit purchase price which was dismissed on ground of limitation‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider the question whether execution of decree could be denied to the petitioner on the ground of limitation when the Trial Court had not prescribed the period within which the judgment‑debtor was required to fulfil the obligation created there under‑‑Direction with regard to maintenance of status quo already given Supreme Court was to continue.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner's suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of property was decreed by the trial Court on 5‑11‑1961. The appeal against the judgment and decree was dismissed on 22‑6‑1962. The respondents then filed a revision petition. It was disposed of on the ground of abatement on 21‑10‑1967. About 5 years later, that is 31‑7‑1972, the petitioner moved an application before the trial Court for permission to deposit the purchase price. His application was dismissed on the ground of limitation. He filed a revision petition in the High Court but it was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the question whether execution oil decree could be denied to the petitioner on the ground of limitation when the trial Court had not prescribed the period within which the judgment‑debtor was required to fulfil the obligations created there under. Security for costs in the sum 'A of Rs.5,
000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with a direction to the parties to file additional documents, if any, within two months. The direction with regard to maintenance of status quo already given by this Court to continue. M.B.A./G‑171/S Leave granted.