1989 PLP 1113 (SCMR)
ATTA MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus HAKIM ALI and 3 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1113 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Usman Ali Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | ATTA MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus HAKIM ALI and 3 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1113 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1113 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Usman Ali Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1113 (SCMR) (ATTA MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus HAKIM ALI and 3 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 17th February, 1988 of the Lahore High Court, in Civil Revision No.114‑D of 1988). Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑ ‑‑‑S.12‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Specific performance‑‑Contention that according to pleadings of the respondents as also other material on record including averments in the agreement relied upon by respondents, they could be compensated by payment of money, therefore, the discretionary relief for specific performance should not have been allowed‑‑Held: High Court had rightly exercised the discretion and noticed the contention and disposed that of with adequate reasons which did not suffer from any such infirmity so as to invoke interference by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendant side in a suit for specific performance; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Revision. The learned counsel in the very outset stated that all other questions relating to the rights of the respective parties‑‑the petitioners side are the second Vendees, having been settled by the Supreme Court in an earlier litigation, the petitioners have only one point to urge in support of this petition. The Supreme Court judgment referred by the learned counsel is 'Hakim Ali and another v. Atta Muhammad and others 1981 S C M R
993. The point now urged is that according to pleadings of the respondents side as also other material on record including averments in the agreement relied upon from the respondents side, they could be compensated by payment off money, therefore, the discretionary relief for specific performance should not have been allowed. After hearing him, at some length, on this question we feel that the discretion has rightly been exercised in favour of the plaintiff side and in any case the High Court having noticed this argument disposed it of with adequate reasons which do not suffer from any such infirmity so as to invoke interference by this Court. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. M.BA./A‑491/S Leave refused