Cancellation of document

In a lis initiated under the Specific Relief Act, 1877, normal course, which the Court adopted , was to examine each and every detail qua agreement inter-se the parties besides claim and counter-claims thereto with actions performed or omitted to perform and then to award appropriate relief

For the functions to be performed by a Court, as equitable remedy, there were some guiding principles/maxims on the subject, one of the same was that "equity looked to the intention and not to the form", there was no issue of form, in the present case, but of course was of the intention

To assess/gauge the intention behind an act, performed or omitted to perform, certain factors were required to be looked into

Acts performed, in the present case, by the respondent/vendee pursuant to the agreement included (i) he, admittedly, paid Rs.10 million (ii) he, on the request of the appellant, paid the part of outstanding amount, admittedly, prior to the time stipulated for the payment (iii) when appellant refused to receive remaining sale consideration on the target date, he (respondent) filed his suit within seven days of the said refusal with readiness to pay the outstanding amount; and (vi) on the direction of the Trial Court, he (respondent) deposited the outstanding amount within the stipulated period, which was also borne out from record

High Court, having assessed the acts held that respondent had the intention to complete the already consented act under the agreement, thus, he was rightly held entitled to discretionary relief under the Specific Relief Act, 1877

Conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court was neither perverse nor arbitrary rather was in consonance with the law on the subject i.e. Specific Relief Act, 1877

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the respondent/vendee

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Sale transaction in favour of objector by virtue of deed of conveyance was entered into between the objector and judgment-debtor on 30-03-2012, i.e., much after the proceedings of banking suit

Two basic conditions as mentioned in S. 23(1) & (2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, were available to decree holder

If a transaction in question was prohibited under an express provision of a statute then such transaction could not be saved on the ground that since it was under a registered instrument, therefore, to give effect to an express provision of law, an independent proceeding under S. 39 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, was to be instituted

Such would destroy the very purpose of S. 23 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and if a transaction did not take place through a registered instrument but in violation of S. 23 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the same could be dealt with without instituting a separate proceeding

Objection was dismissed in circumstances.

Limitation to be counted from the date of knowledge of such document.

Period of limitation to be counted from the date of knowledge of such document.