1999 PLP 1564 (SCMR)
ABDUL SATTAR — Petitioner Versus Haji KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 1564 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR — Petitioner Versus Haji KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1564 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 1564 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 1564 (SCMR) (ABDUL SATTAR — Petitioner Versus Haji KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Rashid Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th July, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 22-10-1996 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.753 of 1996).
Art. 185(3)
Petition was barred by one day and no application for condonation of delay was moved by petitioner
Even on merits, order passed by High Court was unexceptionable
Petition was liable to be dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
The petition is barred by one day. No application has been moved for condonation of delay.
2. Even on merits, the order of the High Court is unexceptionable as reflected in para.3 thereof which reads thus:
"
3. The agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 on 29-7-1978 but no earth was excavated by the petitioner from this land and then a revised agreement was signed on 31-5-1982 and still for a long period the petitioner failed to excavate the earth and the respondent sold the property after 9 years of the amended agreement to respondents 2 to
4. Sufficient long period was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not supposed to bound down the other party for indefinite period. Under the law, he could get the agreement specifically performed within a period of three years and even if no limitation period was fixed, the petitioner was supposed to act reasonably and get the agreement performed within the reasonable time. The agreement also did not estop respondent No. 1 from selling the property to anybody else. In these circumstances, the petitioner has failed to show that the balance of convenience lies in his favour. There will also be no irreparable loss to the petitioner as he has paid a specific amount to respondent No. 1 and in case he fails to get possession of the land under the agreement, he will be entitled to get his amount back from respondent No. 1 and in case he is able to prove before the trial Court that respondent No. I is a party at fault then he, if so advised, may also be able to claim the damages."
3. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed being barred by time and leave declined. H.B.T./A-127/S Petition dismissed.