2008 PLP 71 (YLR)
Mirza MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BAIG — Appellant Versus Rana ATTA MUHAMMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 71 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, J |
| Parties | Mirza MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BAIG — Appellant Versus Rana ATTA MUHAMMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 71 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 71 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 71 (YLR) (Mirza MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BAIG — Appellant Versus Rana ATTA MUHAMMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Islam Sheikh for Appellant.
- Mian Muhammad Nawaz for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.12
Suit for specific performance of agreement-Suit had concurrently been decreed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court had filed
Sale agreement between. the parties was admitted and also the receipt of amount' as advanced by the plaintiff
Terms of agreement to sell had been fulfilled by the plaintiff and no default was attributed to him in that behalf
Two Courts below had, given concurrent findings in favour of plaintiff based on true appreciation of evidence on record
Plaintiff, in circumstances, was entitled to grant of decree of specific enforcement of agreement
No error in reading of the evidence, i.e., or any other illegality contrary to the law, having been found calling for interference in the second appeal, same was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The respondent brought a suit for the specific performance against the appellant, which has been decreed by the learned trial Court; the appellant's first appeal has also been dismissed. The sale agreement between the parties is admitted and also the receipt of Rs.2,50,000 as advance by the respondent to the appellant. However, the appellant's case is that the respondent in fact had violated the terms of the agreement and it is he who had failed to perform his part thereof; in this behalf, much emphasis has been laid upon agreement Exh.P.1, according to which the respondent was obliged to permit the appellant to dig some land for taking away the earth/mud.
2. However, when questioned, if it is mentioned in either of the agreements that these are interdependent and in case the respondent refuses the appellant to take away the earth, he will be disentitled to seek the specific enforcement of his other main agreement, learned counsel for the appellant has very candidly stated in the negative; obviously, if such term is not there how could the respondent be precluded to enforce the agreement to sell, the terms of which he has fulfilled and there is no default attributed to him in this behalf. It is thus on the basis of the admitted position and also on account of the true appreciation of the evidence that the two Courts below have given the concurrent finding in favour of the respondent and against the appellant that the respondent is entitled to the grant of the decree of the specific enforcement. No error in reading of the evidence etc. or any other illegality contrary to the law has been found calling for interference in the second appeal. Dismissed. H.B.T./M-492/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.