Suit for specific performance of contract

Defendant being owner of suit property had entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff and had settled the matter

Defendant had never entered into any transaction or agreement with the present petitioner

Alleged agreement to sell with the petitioner had been executed on behalf of attorney of defendant during pendency of suit when restraining order with regard to further alienation of suit property was in the field

No fraud or misrepresentation had been committed by the defendant with the petitioner or with the Court

Petitioner had purchased suit property during pendency of suit and no fraud or misrepresentation was visible from the material placed on file on the part of defendant

Transaction which had taken place during pendency of suit had no protection as it was hit by the principle of 'lis pendens'

Findings recorded by the Courts below were based on proper appreciation of facts and law applicable thereto

If any fraud or misrepresentation had been committed on the part of general attorney of defendant then same could be remedied through suit for damages and recovery of amount paid by the petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff had produced only one attesting witness of agreement to sell whereas he was to produce two marginal witnesses of sale agreement

Alleged sale agreement was not prepared in the presence of marginal witnesses

Sale agreement of more than Rs. 100/- required registration under S. 17 of Registration Act, 1908

Agreement to sell of immovable property did not create any right or interest on such property

Execution of such agreement did not ipso facto create a charge on immovable property

Execution of an agreement to sell was not a document of truth

Plaintiff had not deposited the balance sale consideration of agreement to sell

Party who had sought enforcement of agreement to sell must deposit the balance sale price before the Trial Court but no such application had been filed on behalf of plaintiff

Plaintiff was bound to prove alleged sale transaction of suit land, execution of sale agreement, paying of earnest money to the defendant

Mere tendering sale agreement in evidence did not enhance its evidentiary value

Plaintiff was bound to prove the existence of facts which had been asserted in the suit

Findings recorded by the Trial Court were based on proper appreciation of evidence

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Impleadment of applicant as defendant was justified for the reason that unless and until he was impleaded the question of title of plaintiff could not be effectively adjudicated upon

Plaintiff would not be able to get possession of suit property unless he impleaded the present applicant as defendant

Generally, in suits for specific performance, only parties to the contract or those against whom contract, could to any extent, be enforced was to be impleaded as defendants

Any person claiming an interest adverse to the vendor and vendee could also be impleaded in such suit

Petitioner was a necessary party to the suit and without being impleaded no effective decree could be passed in the suit

Object of impleading a person who was to be bound down was only to secure full and effective relief

Plaintiff had a right to claim relief not only against a person against whom a relief was directly prayed for but even against a person whose presence would make a relief complete

No illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional defect had been pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine accordingly.

Scribe of the deed was to be considered as witness of alleged transaction in the present case as he knew the seller earlier

Plaintiff had established agreement to sell through two witnesses and had offered a plausible justification for non-production of one of the marginal witnesses being close relative of defendant

Agreement to sell had been established, in circumstances

No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Person who purchased property which was the subject matter of a lis could not put forward the plea of a bona fide purchaser

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Present execution petition had been filed after nine years from the date of passing of the decree which was barred by time

Appeal had been allowed to be withdrawn without any modification or alteration in the judgment passed by the Court below

Judgment of Court below would not merge into the order of Appellate Court, in circumstances

Decree-holder should have filed execution petition within three years from the date of decree of Court below and not from the order of Appellate Court

Appellate Court had rightly set aside the order of Executing Court and dismissed the execution petition being time barred

No error of law or mis-reading of record had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed in, circumstances.

Suit was dismissed against which an appeal was filed wherein an application was moved for impleadment as a party on the ground that petitioner had purchased the suit property

Appellate Court accepted the said application and case was remanded for de novo trial

Validity

Rule of lis pendens was based upon the principle that it would be impossible that any action or suit could be brought to a successful termination if the alienation pendente lite was permitted to prevail and subsequent transferee was allowed to set out his own independent case even of being the bona fide transferee against the succeeding party of the matter and asked for the commencement of de novo proceedings so as to defeat the claim which had been settled by a final judicial verdict

Petitioner was not necessary party to the appeal or suit and appeal could have been decided without impleading him

Impugned judgment was set aside and application for impleadment as a party was dismissed

Matter was remanded to the Appellate Court for decision of appeal afresh in accordance with law

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. [Paras. 5, 6 & 7 of the judgment]

Suit was ex parte decreed against which an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. was moved which was contested by the respondent and after recording evidence same was dismissed

Revision petition against the said order was dismissed and thereafter constitutional petition was disposed of on the statement of applicant that he intended to file an application under O. IX, R. 13 of C.P.C.

Applicant thereafter filed an application under O. IX, R.13, C.P.C. for setting aside of ex parte decree which was dismissed being time-barred

Validity

Limitation for filing application under O. IX, R. 13, C.P.C. when ex parte decree was passed on the date of hearing was one month and in other case it was three years

Time from which the period began to run for setting aside a decree passed ex parte, would be the date of the decree or where the summon was not duly served then when the applicant had knowledge of the decree

Applicant had knowledge of impugned decree when he moved application under S.12(2), C.P.C.

Petitioner availed remedy before wrong forum and time consumed therein was to be computed for the purpose of limitation for filing application under O. IX, R. 13, C.P.C.

Petitioner had failed to prove plausible reason and sufficient cause for his absence from the Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Trial Court while deciding the application for temporary injunction directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration within thirty days otherwise suit would be dismissed

Contention of plaintiff was that condition for depositing the remaining sale consideration was illegal

Validity

Trial Court in a suit for specific performance was bound to consider the sale agreement at the very inception and if any amount was outstanding against the plaintiff, Court must order for its deposit in the Court within the time period so granted

Plaintiff, in the present suit, at the time of filing the same did not deposit the remaining sale consideration to show his bona fide and willingness to perform his part of agreement

Plaintiff instead of complying with the order of Trial Court for deposit of balance sale consideration assailed the same in appeal

Object for direction to deposit the balance sale consideration in the Court was to examine the bona fide of the purchaser for obtaining a decree for specific performance

Non-deposit of balance sale consideration would raise adverse presumption against the plaintiff that he was not serious in performing his part of agreement or in pursuing his remedy of specific performance consequently disentitling him to decree for specific performance

Plaintiff before the cutoff date did not issue notice to the defendant with regard to fulfillment of her part of agreement and his willing to perform his part which showed that he was not serious in performing his part of agreement

Party seeking a remedy for specific performance was bound to apply the Court for depositing the balance sale consideration and any contumacious / omission in this regard would entail dismissal of the suit

No such steps had been taken by the plaintiff in the present suit rather plaintiff lingered on despite of balance sale consideration and kept on disobeying such order

Suit of plaintiff was liable to be dismissed

Revision was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioners moved application to implead plaintiffs/decree-holders as respondents after lapse of three years and four months which was time barred

Omission to implead necessary parties to the appeal within prescribed period of limitation would give rise to the accrual of valuable right to other party which could not be taken away leniently

Petitioners had filed application for impleading necessary parties after the expiry of period of limitation of filing appeal

Provision of O.XLI, R.20, C.P.C. was not intended to overrule other provisions with regard to filing of an appeal and limitation applicable thereto

If necessary party to appeal was not arrayed as respondent in appeal then subsequently same could not be added after expiry of period of limitation

Plaintiffs/decree-holders who were not impleaded as respondents in appeal were necessary parties and without them no effective decree could be passed

Appeal had abated in toto due to non-impleading of necessary parties

No application for condonation of delay had been moved in the present case

Non-impleading of a necessary party had rendered the appeal as incompetent

No illegality or material irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court

Appellate Court had rightly dismissed the appeal, in circumstances

Revision was dismissed accordingly.

Replies of said witnesses during cross-examination were recorded against the gist as well as substance of statement-in-chief

Court was bound to follow the law and proceed with the trial as per procedure laid down in C.P.C.

If Judge was unable to make memorandum then he should record reasons of his inability to record evidence

Memorandum so made should form part of record of the Court

Oral evidence, in the present case, was recorded by the Local Commission but same was not signed or sealed by the Judge

Agreement to sell having been scribed on the plain paper was received in evidence

Trial Court was bound to impound the said agreement

Trial Court had acted in perfunctory manner

Evidence recorded without following the mandatory procedure could not be treated as part of record of the suit

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside

Suit filed on behalf of plaintiffs should be deemed to be pending before the Trial Court who was directed to examine the witnesses of the parties himself and decide the same afresh within a period of six months

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Statement for compromise was recorded on behalf of one of the decree-holders that he did not want execution of decree to his extent

Contention of applicants was that decree in question was not executable

Objection petition was dismissed by the Courts below

Validity

Executing Court was bound to execute the decree, as it was, and it could not exceed beyond the same

One or more persons could submit application for execution of joint decree

Omission on the part of decree-holder to state in his application the names of all the persons who were interested in the decree did not render the execution proceedings invalid

If anyone or more decree-holders had relinquished their rights in the decree then their such conduct would not make the whole decree redundant and un-executable

Petitioner-decree-holder, in the present case, had included rest of the decree-holders in the array of pro forma respondents

Executing Court had rightly protected rights of other decree-holders while observing that sale deed should be executed and registered in favour of all except one who was disinterested to get the decree executed

No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect had been pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below

Constitutional petition was devoid of merits which was dismissed, in circumstances.

Burden lies upon plaintiff to prove existence of contract and his willingness to comply its obligations.

Defendant had not sent any notice to the plaintiff that in case of default on his behalf he would forfeit the advance paid

Defendant had not informed the plaintiff that subject matter of agreement was pledged with the Bank

Subject goods having been pledged with the Bank, defendants were under the obligation not only to inform the plaintiff before entering into the contract but also obtain permission from the Bank for their intention to sell the pledged goods

Suit was decreed and defendant was directed to refund the earnest money with 10% interest per annum to the plaintiff from the date of filing of suit till realization.

Party had to lead testimony of at least two attesting witnesses otherwise said document was to be excluded from consideration

Alleged agreement to sell had been attested by only one marginal witness

Other witness produced by the plaintiff could not be termed as marginal witness as agreement to sell was silent with regard to his signature as attesting witness

Mere signature of a person who had not signed the document in the capacity of attesting witness was not to be deemed to have fulfilled the required compliance of Arts. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Non-attestation of alleged agreement to sell by two marginal witnesses would exclude it from the term of document defined in Art.17 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable and plaint should have been rejected at its inception

Mandatory terms of agreement i.e. non-fixation of time for performance of contract, payment of balance sale consideration by vendee, mode of payment and delivery of possession of land by vendor had not been fulfilled

Description of land was also missing in the case which was fatal for enforcement of agreement to sell

Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Petition for correction of sale deed was moved which was accepted with the direction to the Revenue Official to delete Khasra number incorporated in the sale deed

Validity

No Khasra number of suit land was mentioned either in the agreement to sell or plaint and decree in favour of plaintiff

Agreement to sell was with regard to shops jointly owned by the defendants

Decree for specific performance of part of suit property was passed without specification of boundaries as well as mentioning the area of said property

Sale deed was registered without ensuring that it was in accordance with the judgment passed by the Trial Court

Limitation could not be a hurdle in the way of dispensation of justice when a wrong had been done by the Court

Petitioner for invoking constitutional jurisdiction was bound to show some jurisdictional defect committed by the courts below

No such defect had been pointed out in the orders passed by the courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., was not competent when suit for declaration was pending adjudication before the Civil Court

Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside and application was dismissed

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Limitation prescribed for filing a suit for specific performance was three years from the date when performance of agreement to sell was refused.

First agreement to sell dated 25-09-1994 was executed wherein it was stated that plaintiff would seek transfer of suit land within a period of one month after payment of remaining consideration amount and in the event of default the earnest amount paid would stand forfeited

Said agreement to sell was valid till 25-10-1994

Both the parties after the expiry of the time, entered into a fresh agreement to sell through which time for final execution of agreement to sell was extended till 01-02-1995

Defendant himself had subverted the earlier agreement to sell and consented to a fresh agreement

Trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence through well reasoned findings had found that plaintiff entitled to only partial relief of return of earnest amount

Appellate Court unduly reversed the findings of Trial Court

Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court were restored

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Limitation for filing suit for specific performance of contract was three years from the date fixed for its performance, or, if no such date was fixed, when the plaintiff had notice that performance had been refused.

Suit against the said defendant was to be deemed to have been instituted from the date when company was impleaded as defendant

Plaintiff had stated in the plaint that cause of action had accrued on 26-08-2011

Present suit was time barred against newly impleaded defendant private limited company

Remaining defendants were not owners of the suit property

Suit to compel the said defendants to execute sale in favour of plaintiff was not maintainable

Plaintiff was bound to prove execution of agreement to sell with the lawful owner of suit property

Alleged agreement to sell was not executed by the company or any duly authorized person by the company in accordance with law

Managing Directors of a company had to act on the basis of authorization by the Board of Directors of company or on the basis of its Articles of Association

Even plaint/suit on behalf of a company could not be filed by the Director of a company for its benefit without proper authorization

Nothing was on record with regard to any meeting of the company to propose sale of its property

Even sale consideration was not paid to the company

Immovable property owned by a private limited company could not be sold by its Director

Suit property remained to be the property of company in the record of Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan

Documents including alleged agreement to sell appeared to be forged and fabricated

Even legal heirs of Director of company could not step into the shoes of Director on his/her death to deal with the assets of a private limited company

Suit property belonged to a private limited company and possession of plaintiff on the suit property was result of fraud and mismanagement of the assets of private limited company

Plaintiff had not produced any of the marginal witnesses of agreement to sell and payment receipts

Photocopy of document was inadmissible in evidence

Business of registered company was to be transacted through Bank account held by the said company

Any transaction by or between the third party with any person who was even Director of company could not be treated as transaction binding on the company itself

Plaintiff had failed to establish contract with the lawful owner of suit property

Plaintiff had made attempt to misuse the process of court on the basis of forged documents

Court was bound to protect such immovable property owned by the company

Company had abandoned its business and its property should be dealt with in accordance with law

Suit property could only be protected or disposed of by winding-up of the company for the benefits of its affectees, if any

Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan was directed to initiate proceedings against the company and wind-up the same

Nazir of the High Court was directed to inspect the suit property and take over possession of entire suit property till final order by the Court

Member Inspection Team was directed to examine affidavit filed by the plaintiff in his examination-in-chief on oath and file a complaint against him if any case was made out

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Object for giving direction to deposit the balance sale consideration in the Court was to see the bona fides of a purchaser

Injunction in such case was granted so that the corpus of dispute remained intact and ultimately could be transferred to a successful party in litigation

Balance sale consideration was to be invested in some profit bearing scheme enabling the vendor/defendant to get an increased amount as sale consideration

If purchaser/plaintiff was unsuccessful then deposited amount was to be returned back to him with accruals in order to safeguard his interest

Non-deposit of sale consideration would raise adverse presumption against plaintiff that he was not serious in performing his agreed part of contract disentitling him to decree for specific performance

Party seeking remedy of specific performance was to apply to the Court for depositing the balance amount

Any contumacious/ omission in that regard would entail in dismissal of suit or decretal of the same if it was filed by the other side

Plaintiff, in the present case, enjoyed the ad-interim injunctive relief but despite giving ample opportunities and chances to comply with the orders of Court he kept on defying all such directions/orders

One who sought equity must also do equity

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Suit against the said defendant was to be deemed to have been instituted from the date when company was impleaded as defendant

Plaintiff had stated in the plaint that cause of action had accrued on 26-08-2011

Present suit was time barred against newly impleaded defendant private limited company

Remaining defendants were not owners of the suit property

Suit to compel the said defendants to execute sale in favour of plaintiff was not maintainable

Plaintiff was bound to prove execution of agreement to sell with the lawful owner of suit property

Alleged agreement to sell was not executed by the company or any duly authorized person by the company in accordance with law

Managing Directors of a company had to act on the basis of authorization by the Board of Directors of company or on the basis of its Articles of Association

Even plaint/suit on behalf of a company could not be filed by the Director of a company for its benefit without proper authorization

Nothing was on record with regard to any meeting of the company to propose sale of its property

Even sale consideration was not paid to the company

Immovable property owned by a private limited company could not be sold by its Director

Suit property remained to be the property of company in the record of Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan

Documents including alleged agreement to sell appeared to be forged and fabricated

Even legal heirs of Director of company could not step into the shoes of Director on his/her death to deal with the assets of a private limited company

Suit property belonged to a private limited company and possession of plaintiff on the suit property was result of fraud and mismanagement of the assets of private limited company

Plaintiff had not produced any of the marginal witnesses of agreement to sell and payment receipts

Photocopy of document was inadmissible in evidence

Business of registered company was to be transacted through Bank account held by the said company

Any transaction by or between the third party with any person who was even Director of company could not be treated as transaction binding on the company itself

Plaintiff had failed to establish contract with the lawful owner of suit property

Plaintiff had made attempt to misuse the process of court on the basis of forged documents

Court was bound to protect such immovable property owned by the company

Company had abandoned its business and its property should be dealt with in accordance with law

Suit property could only be protected or disposed of by winding-up of the company for the benefits of its affectees, if any

Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan was directed to initiate proceedings against the company and wind-up the same

Nazir of the High Court was directed to inspect the suit property and take over possession of entire suit property till final order by the Court

Member Inspection Team was directed to examine affidavit filed by the plaintiff in his examination-in-chief on oath and file a complaint against him if any case was made out

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Limitation for filing suit for specific performance of contract was three years from the date fixed for its performance, or, if no such date was fixed, when the plaintiff had notice that performance had been refused.

Petitioner/intervener moved application for impleadment as plaintiff on the ground that he had acquired all rights and interests of deceased plaintiff in respect of suit property on the basis of agreement to sell executed between him and deceased plaintiff

Validity

Nothing was on record that suit property had been transferred in the name of deceased plaintiff

Plaintiff had claimed right and title in the suit property on the basis of agreement of sale

Sale agreement did not confer any legal right or title until it was enforced through decree of the Court and sale deed was executed

No legal right devolved in favour of petitioner/intervener

Deceased plaintiff was not competent or qualified to transfer suit property to anyone including the petitioner

Execution of alleged agreement of sale/assignment on the part of deceased plaintiff in favour of petitioner/intervener was not enforceable under the law

Petitioner/intervener could not be accepted and recognized as necessary or proper party in absence of legal right and character

Petitioner/intervener could not be treated as a substitute of deceased plaintiff in the suit

No interest had been created in favour of petitioner/intervener

Petitioner was not legal heir of deceased plaintiff

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court

Trial Court was directed to take legal action/steps as per law for joining the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiff had failed to deposit the requisite amount with the Nazir of the Court which had falsified/belied his averments made on oath

Plaintiff seeking equitable relief of specific performance of contract was bound to be ready and willing throughout the proceedings to perform his part of contract

Plaintiff being not serious to perform his agreed part of contract, thus disentitled himself to have a decree in his favour for specific performance

No decree for specific performance of contract could be passed in favour of plaintiff which was discretionary and equitable in nature

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Suit for specific performance of contract could be instituted within a limitation of three years from the date fixed for performance of said contract.

Plaintiff seeking impleadment of National Accountability Bureau as defendant and restraining order against his arrest as well as de-freezing of his accounts

Plaintiff could seek specific performance of any agreement, against the parties who had entered into such agreement

Plaintiff had sought specific performance of contract entered into with some government organization against whom National Accountability Bureau had initiated case

National Accountability Bureau could not be restrained by the Civil Court under the garb of a status quo order

Plaintiff could agitate such issue before Accountability Court or Constitutional Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Civil Court had no jurisdiction against the impugned action of NAB Authorities

Application for impleadment of the National Accountability Bureau as party was dismissed in circumstances.

Defendants after submitting of written statement did not appear and ex-parte proceedings were initiated and suit was decreed

Application for setting aside of ex-parte decree was moved but same was dismissed on the ground of limitation

Validity

Defendants could file an application for setting aside ex-parte decree within thirty days from the date of decree

Where summons were not served upon the defendant then limitation period would commence when the decree came in the knowledge of defendant

Defendants, in the present case, submitted written statement and continued to appear before the Trial Court till 24-11-2009

Impugned judgment and decree were passed on 30-06-2010

Application for setting aside of ex-parte decree was moved on 19-06-2013 which was time-barred

No application for condonation of delay was moved with the application for setting aside of ex-parte decree

Where defendant died during pendency of suit, Court was to make the legal representatives of deceased party to the suit on application filed in that behalf

One of the defendants died and his legal heirs approached the Court for their impleadment as parties to the suit

Legal heirs of deceased defendant were already party to the suit and were represented by their counsel

Application for setting aside of ex-parte decree was rightly dismissed by the Court below being time barred

No one could take a position in the proceedings before appellate or revisional forum contrary to the one taken by their predecessor before the Trial Court

Factum of pre-purchase of suit land had not been pleaded by the defendants in their written statement

No one could be permitted to improve case and raise a new ground of attack by departing from the pleadings

No jurisdictional infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned orders/judgments passed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Said limitation period was to commence from the date fixed for the performance of agreement or if no date was fixed then from the date when plaintiff had noticed that performance was refused.

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that plaintiff did not produce attesting witnesses of alleged agreement to sell

Contention of plaintiff was that defendant did not appear and there was no denial to the execution of agreement to sell and he was not required to produce attesting witnesses of agreement to sell

Validity

Plaintiff was required to examine at least two attesting witnesses of agreement to sell to prove its execution and to get a decree for its specific performance

Decree could not be passed without recording evidence simply on defendant's non-appearance and upon verification of the plaint

Document could be said to be admitted or denied only when defendant appeared before the court and made statement to such effect

Proviso to Art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 did not apply where there was no defendant's statement at all

Defendant did not appear before the Trial Court in the present case and it could not be said that agreement to sell was not denied relieving the plaintiff to prove the same

Absence of defendant did not absolve the plaintiff to prove the execution of agreement to sell by calling its two attesting witnesses

Plaintiff had not produced attesting witnesses of agreement to sell and Trial Court was justified in declining to issue decree in the present case

Plaintiff was beneficiary of alleged agreement to sell and he was bound to prove the same as per law

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Sale of property through contract would take effect in terms and conditions incorporated therein but it did not by itself create any interest or change in the same

Onus would lie on the beneficiary to prove that transaction had been duly settled between the parties on such terms and conditions

Alleged agreement to sell had been signed/thumb marked by one of the vendees

Beneficiary could neither be a judge of his own cause nor could be treated as an attesting witness of his own transaction even if he had signed the agreement in such capacity

Vendee was an interested person who got recorded his evidence as attesting witness

Statement of vendee could not be treated at par with that of attesting witness

Plaintiff had not examined other attesting witnesses of agreement to sell as they had passed away prior to the recording of evidence

Person whose statement was recorded to prove the signature of deceased attesting witness could not prove the execution of agreement to sell

Stamp vendor was neither examined nor stamp vending register was got summoned which might have been retained in the safe custody

Alleged contract was scribed by an un-licensed deed writer

No documentary evidence of corroborative nature in shape of register of stamp vendor/deed writer was available on record

Party had to succeed on its own footing and no premium could be extended to him merely on account of making a statement on special oath which remained unproved through evidence led by him on record

If a party without consent of his adversary at his own made a statement on special oath and in rebuttal the latter did not opt to make such type of statement then no adverse inference could be drawn against him

Unilateral statement of a party if any made on special oath had to be collaborated by the other independent evidence

Court could only decide a lis on the basis of statement made on special oath provided both the parties agreed thereto

Court in absence of any agreeable situation among the parties neither could enforce an unwilling party to make statement on such oath nor could decide the lis on its basis which was administered without the consent of other party

Alleged agreement to sell was not a registered document but only notarized one but notary was not examined by the beneficiaries

Court was not bound to attach presumption of execution to a document more than 30 years old without considering the other facts of the case to draw such inference

Terms of documents and intention of the parties as to character of document must be gathered after considering its terms as a whole but not in isolation

Expression of the entire document was to be taken into consideration while interpreting the same

Nothing was on record that possession of suit property was delivered to the plaintiffs in consequence of transaction reflected in agreement to sell

Party approaching the Court for seeking some relief had to stand on its own legs

Any weakness in the defence of adversary would neither improve the case of a party nor would he be entitled for any relief on such score alone

Plaintiff had failed to establish execution of agreement to sell as well as transaction reflected therein

Findings recorded by the Courts below were result of twisting the material available on record

No target date for performance of contract had been provided therein

Period for filing of suit would start from the time when executant refused to honour his/her part

Present suit was filed after the period of 21 years after the death of original promisor

No specific date for refusal to execute the agreement to sell had been provided in the plaint

Present suit was barred by time

Judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below were result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence

Impugned judgments and decrees were set aside and suit was dismissed with special cost of Rs.100,000/

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

If date was fixed for performance of contract, time shall be computed from the date mentioned; if no date had been fixed, time shall be reckoned from the date when plaintiff had notice regarding refusal of performance by the proposed vendor

No date was fixed for specific performance of the contract and as such second part of Art. 113 of the First Schedule of the Act was attracted to the facts of the present case.

Nothing was on record as to when and in whose presence bargain was settled and consideration amount was paid to the defendant

Scribe or anybody who did not put his signature on the document as attesting witness could not be considered as attesting witness

Copies of non-judicial record could not be received in evidence without the proof of signature/thumb impression and writings of the person alleged to have signed/thumb marked or written the same even if such documents brought on record were accepted without objection

If a party was in possession of some document/evidence in support of his claim but he did not produce the said document/evidence then presumption would be that the evidence not produced and withheld, if was produced, would have gone against his version

Departmental/tribunal proceedings had presumption of truth but defendant had also a right to rebut the same by raising defence

Even judicial proceedings could be attacked under Art.85 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Alleged agreement to sell was unilateral in nature having not been signed by the vendees which was not enforceable under the law

No decree for specific performance could be granted in the present case

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence

Both the courts below had erred in law while decreeing the suit which could not be sustained

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts were set aside and suit was dismissed

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

No illegality, irregularity or any jurisdictional defect had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell could be filed within three years from the day when cause of action accrued.

Plaintiff was bound to produce cogent evidence including two marginal witnesses of agreement to sell before the court in order to prove his assertion

Every document was hit by the provisions of Art.17 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Agreement to sell, in the present case was neither executed as required under Art.17 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 nor it could be proved as per requirement of Art.79 of the said Order

Document required to be proved must be attested by two witnesses and it could not be proved until and unless two attesting witnesses appeared before the court and testified such document

If initial requirements were completed then the provision of Art.82 of Qanun-e-Shahadat,1984 would be applicable

Alleged agreement to sell was attested by one marginal witness only and there existed no other marginal witness of the said document

Article 82 of Qanun-e-Shahadat,1984 might be relevant in a case where two attesting witnesses existed but not in the case of a document where there was only one marginal witness

Witness which did not exist could not be presumed that he had denied or failed to recollect execution of the document

Plaintiff could not be allowed to get benefit from the weaknesses of the other side and he had to stand on its own legs

Plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction on 17-01-1994 wherein it was asserted that cause of action had accrued prior to 15 days before filing of said suit

Present suit was filed on 21-06-1997 which was beyond the period of three years and was time barred

No misreading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Subsequent vendee should be impleaded as party to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to defend her right in the suit property if any

Plaintiffs were bound to implead subsequent vendee while filing the suit provided such subsequent sale and name of vendee was in their knowledge

Impleadment of subsequent vendee could not be termed as mere formality or an exercise in routine but same was a requirement of the circumstances

Each party should have opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the other party

Facts might not be easily suppressed when all the parties were available before the court

Findings recorded by the courts below did not suffer from any illegality and material irregularity

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 had been given over-riding effect upon "anything inconsistent in any other law for the time being in force"

Remedy of an appeal against an order of Rent Controller had been provided but it did not include 'an interim order'

Constitutional petition would be included in term 'legal proceedings'

Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was not applicable in the proceedings under Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963

Proceedings before Rent Controller were an independent proceedings which were controlled by the special law while proceedings before a civil Court were altogether different from the proceedings before Rent Controller

Filing of civil suit before or after proceedings before Rent Controller should not prejudice the competence of such independent legal 'forums'

Rent Controller was not subordinate to civil court

Civil court could not pass an order of staying the judicial proceedings pending before the Rent Controller

Proceedings before Rent Controller could not be said to be 'without due course of law or illegal'

Status quo order passed in the civil suit was not helpful to seek stay of proceedings before the Rent Controller

Tenant had not brought true fact (s) before the civil Court that he was seeking injunction for a purpose to defeat or delay a 'specific lawful proceedings' pending before a 'lawful forum'

Tenant could not use or exploite the injunction order for the purpose which was never brought to light

Injunction obtained against a person could not be used or exploited against an independent person when he was not directly or indirectly involved

If tenant had a case even then he was required to pay entire default amount on account of rent to the landlord or deposit the same before the Rent Controller

Tenant had to assert the question of title in terms of alleged sale agreement for specific performance of contract separately without exerting any pressure upon the Rent Controller

Rent Controller was directed by the High Court to decide the case within two months

Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed.

Act of vendor would not prejudice the right of vendee to seek enforcement of his rights if vendor had title even at later stage or recovery of compensation if vendor failed in perfecting title of vendee

Injunctive order did not hold the status of a 'decree' and same would not make an agreement void unless vendor was not competent to enter into a contract at such time or was subsequently declared so

Defendants had no intention to deceive the plaintiff and they were ready to perform their part subject to payment of balance consideration

Silence or concealment of some immaterial facts would not qualify the term 'fraud'

Defendants were competent to enter into contract and agreement to sell

Non-disclosure of injunctive order was not sufficient to declare the agreement 'void'

Defendants communicated their intention to the plaintiff to perform their part while requesting to place draft deeds for execution thereof but plaintiff avoided the same

Plaintiff avoided to pay balance consideration

Plaintiff was not entitled for restoration of earnest money

Defendants had admitted the claim of plaintiff to the extent of agreement and they were ready to perform their obligations

Suit of plaintiff was decreed subject to deposit of remaining consideration amount within one month failing which earnest money deposited with Nazir would be returned to the defendants

If defendants failed to make title of plaintiff perfect on payment of remaining consideration amount then earnest money should be restored to the plaintiff.

Plaintiff was required to prove execution of agreement to sell by examining its scribe or the marginal witnesses thereof

Plaintiff was bound to prove original transaction along with agreement

Failure of plaintiff to prove the same, judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were set aside and suit was dismissed with costs

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Limitation period of three years had been provided for a suit seeking specific performance of contract to be filed from the date fixed for the performance in the agreement or if no such date was fixed then the date on which plaintiff had noticed that performance had been refused.

Plaintiffs filed two suits for specific performance of Asset Purchase Agreements claiming that the defendants, having sold out the suit property to them, had avoided to perform their part of contract and tried to interfere with their possession, whereupon, the Single Judge of the High Court, on injunction application, directed the parties to maintain status quo

Defendants, denying the existence of said agreements contended that the plaintiffs, under the garb of status quo order, had forcibly taken over the possession

Single Judge of High Court on basis of judicial inquiry report, handed over the possession of the property back to the defendants

Validity

Defendants, being owners of the suit property, had been in possession of the same

In spite of the huge sale consideration, not a single penny had been shown to have been paid to the defendants

Single Judge of the High Court had passed the impugned order while exercising inherent jurisdiction, which was proper and legal in all respects

Defendants had made misrepresentations while filing present appeals

Defendants had already impugned the same orders of the Single Judge of the High Court by filing two appeals, which they had withdrawn after filing the present appeals against the same orders

Defendants, playing fraud and malafidely misrepresenting/suppressing facts, had obtained status quo order in present appeals showing themselves to be in possession of the suit property and again forcibly, illegally and unlawfully occupied the suit property

Defendants, therefore, had abused the process of the Court and come to the Court with unclean hands and mala fide intention for wrongful gains

High Court, maintaining the impugned orders, issued notices in the contempt application and also required the counsel for the plaintiffs to explain as to why the matter not be referred to the Bar Council for initiating disciplinary proceedings against him for misconduct

Appeals were dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiff did not produce the original documents to establish the authority of attorney of defendant and payment of receipts to such attorney

Agreement to sell could only create a right to seek enforcement thereof

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

'Any party' or 'representative-in-interest' or the 'principal' of any party could seek specific performance of contract.

Time would not be essence of a contract in the matter of sale of immovable property inspite of the fact that time was mentioned in the sale agreement

Both the parties had not treated time as the essence of contract at any stage

Matter, in the present case, did not come within the ambit of first part of Art.113 of Limitation Act, 1908

Defendant before invoking the bar of limitation under second part of Art.113 of Limitation Act, 1908 had to prove affirmatively that more than three years before filing of suit he had unequivocally, unconditionally and clearly refused to perform his part of contract

No direct refusal on the part of defendant was on record

Plaintiff acquired knowledge of refusal of defendant upon service of notice in another case in January/February 2005 and filed suit on 24-02-2007 which was within time

Both the courts below had exercised discretion under S.22 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 on sound reasons which was neither perverse nor arbitrary nor inequitable

Relief of specific performance was discretionary relief which would rest in judicial discretion

Both the courts below had exercised discretion on sound principles

High Court in second appeal could not interfere with that discretion unless same was contrary to law or usage having force of law

Where defendant committed breach of contract, it was not obligatory on the plaintiff to prove his willingness to perform the contract in a suit for specific performance

Second appeal being not maintainable, was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiff was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration with the Nazir of the Court within two weeks in order to show his bona fide but he did not comply with the said order

Defendants sought rejection of plaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to fulfil his part of contract

Validity

Plaintiff had not deposited the balance sale consideration as directed by the Court till today which default was sufficient alone to dismiss the suit for non-prosecution

No application was filed by the plaintiff for extension of time for depositing the said balance sale consideration

Plaintiff was not interested in pursuing his remedy for specific performance of the present case

Plaintiff seeking equitable remedy of specific performance must always be willing and ready to perform his part of contract

Conduct of plaintiff had reflected that he had been protracting the litigation on one pretext or the other

Price of property had increased and if an order was passed for depositing the balance sale consideration in terms of earlier order then same would jeopardize the interest of defendants

Vested right had accrued to the defendants to oppose the extension of time for depositing the balance sale consideration in terms of earlier order

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiff claimed that defendant was owner of suit property and entered into sale agreement for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,60,000

Amount of Rs.60,000/- and 2,00,000/- was paid to the defendant

Subsequently defendant did not come forward to receive the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- thus plaintiff filed suit for specific performance

Plaintiff in support of his case, produced two attesting witnesses of sale agreement as well as petition-writer

One witness deposed that he knew plaintiff and amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid to defendant in his presence

Second witness deposed that sale agreements were executed in his presence and Rs.60,000/- and 2,00,000/- was paid in his presence and no question was asked to him as to why he was deposing in favour of plaintiff

Defendant did not show any reservation against the plaintiff's witnesses

Defendant alleged that plaintiff was his tenant but no rent agreement or rent receipt was produced

Defendant alleged that he was not sole owner of the suit property which fact was not proved

Trial court decided the question of limitation in favour of plaintiff

Finding of the trial court decreeing the suit of plaintiff and lower appellate court dismissing appeal were upheld

Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.