1993CLC51 (PLP)

(1) Whether the suit is insufficiently valued for the purpose of court‑fee and jurisdiction. If so, what is the correct valuation? OPD. (2)Whether the suit is within the period of limitation? OPD. (3) Whether the suit is barred by principle of res judicata? OPD. (4) Whether the defendant agreed to sell land in suit in consideration of Rs.20,000 to plaintiff under agreement to sell dated 23‑1‑1965 and received Rs.4,000 as earnest money? OPD. (5) Whether the plaintiff complied with terms of agreement to sell and advanced remaining amount i.e. Rs.2,000 or Rs.12,860 to defendants? OPD. . . (6) Whether the agreement of sale is illegal and in contravention of provisions of Section 19 of Colonization of Government Lands Act, read with Section 17 of the Registration Act? OPP. (7) Whether the plaintiff deposited Rs.2,600 as instalment towards sale amount in name of defendant? OPP. (8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Spec Performance of Contract on payment of remaining sale amount, i.e. Rs.540? If so, own what terms? OPP. (9) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of the parties? (10) Relief. After recording evidence and hearing arguments, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 6‑3‑1982 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent. Learned trial Court held that agreement for sale was executed by the plaintiff who is a respondent in the civil revision and that lack of sanction under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, is not fatal to the passing of a decree for Specific Performance of Contract in favour of the plaintiff‑respondent. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, the defendant filed R.F.A. before learned District Judge, which has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 15‑6‑1983. Findings of questions of. fact and law have been upheld by the learned First Appellate Court and it has been held that there was an agreement for sale duly executed by the defendant‑petitioner, and, further, absence of approval under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act does not render the agreement for sale as void. It is these two judgments and decree which has been is sought to be by the petitioner in this civil revision.

2. The only point urged by the learned counsel in support of the present Civil Revision is that as admittedly, sanction in terms of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 has not been previous in the time of execution of the agreement for sale therefore, the judgments and decree passed by the two learned Courts below are not lawful. On the findings of fad recorded by the learned trial Court on other issues involved in the case, the learned counsel has addressed no argument. I have asked the learned counsel that in view of the latest pronouncement by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, it has now been authoritatively settled that want of sanction under section 19 of the Act of 1912, prior to the execution of an agreement for sale is not fatal and a decree for Specific Performance of such a contract can be granted. See Muhammad Iqbal and others v. Mirza Muhammad Hussain and others PLD 1986 SC 70, Abdul Hameed. v. Muhammad Adam and others 1989 SCMR 605 and Muhammad Afzal and another v. Rehmat Ali and others 1991 SCMR 1785. Moreover, decree for Specific Performance of Contract is just a confirmation of agreement for sale, hence the arguments of the learned counsel in the present circumstances shall carry no weight. Learned counsel has conceded to the above proposition and in fact has nothing to say against it. In view of the above legal position, the only point which has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is support of the Civil Revision being not sustainable, no fault can be found with the judgments rendered by the two learned Courts below‑ Resultantly, the Civil Revision is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑634/L Revision dismissed.