1991 PLP 1794 (SCMR)
KHAN SAEED ALAM — Petitioner Versus TARIQ MUSTAFA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1794 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | KHAN SAEED ALAM — Petitioner Versus TARIQ MUSTAFA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1794 (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 1991 PLP 1794 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1794 (SCMR) (KHAN SAEED ALAM — Petitioner Versus TARIQ MUSTAFA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record and Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th March, 1990,
- M. Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record and Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- 3‑ We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 13 and have also perused the record. There is no written sale agreement in the case nor any written receipts executed by Mian Muhammad Attaullah respondent No.2, or his wife Mrs. Rehana Ataullah, or any of their major children, in respect of the large payments alleged to have been made by the petitioner on their behalf. The oral sale agreement is alleged to have been executed in 1979, whereas the suit was instituted in 1985. Initially the suit was filed in respect of the eastern half portion of the disputed plot, but later amended to cover the western half portion. The learned Judges of the Division Bench, whilst exercising their discretion against the petitioner, held that the analysis of the evidence of the parties made by the trial Court sustained the plea that the transaction was not free from blemish and that as the case was one of an agreement for sale made on behalf of respondents Nos. 2, to 13 without proper authorisation, it did not ostensibly justify the passing of a status quo order to their detriment. These observations prima facie neither appear to be illegal nor capricious. This Court normally does not interfere in interlocutory matters. However, on the basis of a proper review of the matter, the order passed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench appears to be both proper and correct and does not call for any interference. Leave is therefore refused.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi dated 7-3-1990 in C.M. 183/C of 1990 in Regular First Appeal No.1 of 1990).
S.12
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXXIX, Rr.l & 2
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Suit for specific performance of agreement-- Plaintiff's suit having failed in Trial Court his application for grant of status quo was rejected by Appellate Court so also his appeal before High Court
Plaintiff, initially had filed suit in respect of eastern half portion of plot in question but later amended his plaint to cover western half portion
High Court, while exercising its discretion against plaintiff had held that analysis of evidence of parties made by Trial Court sustained the plea that transaction was not free from blemish and that as the case was one of agreement for sale made on behalf of specified respondents without proper authorisation, it did not ostensibly justify the passing of status quo order to their detriment
Such observations of High Court neither appeared to be illegal nor capricious-- Supreme Court, normally would not interfere in interlocutory matters
On the basis of proper review of the matter, order passed by High Court appeared to be both proper and correct, not calling for any interference
Leave to appeal refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑‑This is a petition by Khan Saeed Alain, petitioner seeking leave to appeal against the order of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 7‑3‑1990 refusing to order the maintenance of status quo in respect of the western half portion of plot No.21, Blue Area, Islamabad, pending the disposal of the petitioner's appeal in that Court.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Khan Saeed Alam petitioner filed a suit for specific performance against Tariq Mustafa and others respondents Nos.1 to 14 inn respect of an oral agreement for sale alleged to have been made by Tariq Mustafa respondent No.1 and Sheikh Muhammad Saeed respondent No.14, a property dealer, regarding the western half portion of plot No.21, Blue Area, Islamabad. It was submitted by the petitioner that he had paid Rs.10,00,000 and that as the respondents had refused to complete the contract but rather were intending to sell away the disputed property for a higher price, he prayed that the contract be specifically enforced or, in the alternative, that he be awarded decree for recovery of damages to the extent of Rs.30,00,000 and a further sum of Rs.50,000 against respondent No.14, an Estate Agent. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad, on 8‑2‑1980. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner filed Regular First Appeal before the High Court. The petitioner also Filed a petition for the grant of status quo order pending the final disposal of the appeal, which was rejected on 7‑3‑1990. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the same. 3‑ We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 13 and have also perused the record. There is no written sale agreement in the case nor any written receipts executed by Mian Muhammad Attaullah respondent No.2, or his wife Mrs. Rehana Ataullah, or any of their major children, in respect of the large payments alleged to have been made by the petitioner on their behalf. The oral sale agreement is alleged to have been executed in 1979, whereas the suit was instituted in 1985. Initially the suit was filed in respect of the eastern half portion of the disputed plot, but later amended to cover the western half portion. The learned Judges of the Division Bench, whilst exercising their discretion against the petitioner, held that the analysis of the evidence of the parties made by the trial Court sustained the plea that the transaction was not free from blemish and that as the case was one of an agreement for sale made on behalf of respondents Nos. 2, to 13 without proper authorisation, it did not ostensibly justify the passing of a status quo order to their detriment. These observations prima facie neither appear to be illegal nor capricious. This Court normally does not interfere in interlocutory matters. However, on the basis of a proper review of the matter, the order passed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench appears to be both proper and correct and does not call for any interference. Leave is therefore refused. AA./S‑538/S Leave refused.