2003 PLP 453 (MLD)
ALLAH DITTA KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus NAJAM ULLAH alias NAJAM FASIH and 10 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 453 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M.A. Shahid Siddiqui, J |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus NAJAM ULLAH alias NAJAM FASIH and 10 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 453 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 453 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M.A. Shahid Siddiqui, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 453 (MLD) (ALLAH DITTA KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus NAJAM ULLAH alias NAJAM FASIH and 10 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz Khalil Ahmad for Appellant.
- Sheikh Muzaffar Ahmad Zafar for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd July, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 12‑‑‑Specific performance of agreement of sale‑‑‑Defendants agreed to sell land in favour of plaintiff and plaintiff paid amount as earnest money at the time of execution of agreement and remaining amount was to be paid by plaintiff to defendant before specified date‑‑‑Plaintiff having failed to pay remaining amount according to the agreement, defendants sold land to other persons and amount received by defendants from plaintiff was paid back to the plaintiff‑‑‑Plaintiff could not deny the fact that he had been paid back earnest money through Bank draft‑‑ Plaintiff was rightly held not entitled to get specific performance of the contract.
Judgment & Decree
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Najam Ullah (defendant No. 1) agreed on his behalf as well as on behalf of defendants Nos.2 to 9 to sell. 79 Kanals and 2 Marlas of land at the rate of Rs.20,000, per acre, fully described in the head-note of the plaint, in favour of Allah. Ditta appellant/plaintiff vide an agreement dated 6‑7‑1978. The plaintiff paid Rs.30,000 at the time of the execution of the agreement and the remaining sale price was to be paid before 6‑10‑1978. The plaintiff failed to make the payment of the remaining sale price and get the sale‑deed registered within the specified period. On 7‑1‑1979, the defendants Nos. 10 and 11 purchased the suit land through a registered sale‑deed. The plaintiff challenged the validity of the sale‑deed by means of a civil suit and prayed for a decree for specific performance of agreement dated 6‑7‑1978. The defendants contested the suit and pleaded that the plaintiff had failed to perform his part of the contract and that after rescinding the agreement, the suit land was sold to defendants Nos. 10 and
11. It was further pleaded that the earnest money received by defendants Nos. 1 to 9 was paid back to the plaintiff. The pleadings of the parties led to the framing of the following issues. ISSUES: (1) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit? OPD. (2) Whether the suit is not correctly valued for the purpose of court- fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is the correct valuation and its effect? OPD. (3) Whether the suit is false, frivolous, vexatious, if so, is the defendant entitled to special costs under section 35‑A. C.P.C., if so, to what extent? OPD. (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the specific performance of the contract of sale, if so, on what terms and conditions? OPP. (4‑A) Whether the sale agreement has been rescinded by parties because earnest money received back by plaintiff' OPD. (5) Relief.
4. The learned trial Court, after making appraisal of the entire evidence dismissed the plaintiff s suit vide judgment and decree, dated 2‑4‑1989. Allah Ditta Khan plaintiff preferred an appeal, which also tailed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant could not deny the fact that the plaintiff had beets paid back the earnest money of Rs.70.000 through Bank draft. As such both the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff is not entitled to get specific performance of the contract. I find no substance in this appeal, which is dismissed with costs throughout. H.B.T./A‑684/L Appeal dismissed.