EnglishFrenchPortugueseRussianUrdu

2001 M L D 25

 

[Lahore]

 

Before Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J

 

ABDUL HAMEED‑‑‑Petitioner

 

versus

 

SHARIQ MEHMOOD and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents

 

Civil Revision No. 1381‑D of 1994, heard on 9th March, 2000.

 

 

Khadim Nadim Malik for Petitioner.

Ch. Saghir Ahmad for Respondents.

 

Date of hearing: 9th March, 2000.

JUDGMENT

 

The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell the suit land dated 18‑2‑1984. It was alleged in the plaint that Mehmood, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents agreed to sell the suit land to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.14,700. A sum of Rs.5,000 was paid as earnest while the balance was to be paid up to 31‑8‑1984 when a sale‑deed was to be executed and registered. According to the plaint the petitioner had been running after the said Mehmood asking him to perform the contract but because of illness of the latter the same could not be done. The present suit was then filed on 19‑10‑1990. The respondents filed a written statement objecting that the suit is barred by time. On merits they denied the existence of any agreement. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court found that although the execution of the agreement as alleged in the plaint stands proved, yet, the suit was beyond limitation. It was also held that, the petitioner failed to perform his part of the contract and thus, committed breach thereof. On the said two counts the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28‑11‑1993. An appeal filed by the petitioner was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal who dismissed the same on 5‑9‑1994.

 

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the time was not essence of the contract and that the suit was within time. He also prays that even if specific performance was refused a decree for compensation ought to have been passed in his favour. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgments and decrees.

 

3. I have gone through the certified copies of the record appended with this civil revision. A perusal of agreement (Exh.P.1) shows that the parties had agreed that the balance amount of consideration had to be paid by a fixed date when the deceased Mehmood had to execute a sale‑deed in favour of the petitioner. This date is 31‑8‑1984. Under Article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the petitioner was bound to file the present suit within three years of the said date but the suit was filed in the year 1990 and has rightly been held to be barred by time.

 

4. So far as the arguments based on section 55 of the Contract Act, 1872 is concerned, both the learned Courts below have concurrently found’ that it was the petitioner who was guilty of the breach of contract and after a perusal of the evidence on record I am not inclined to disagree with the said conclusion. Nothing, therefore, turns on the arguments of the learned counsel that the time was not of the essence of the contract.

 

5. Regarding the matter of compensation I find that since the petitioner has been found to be guilty of breach of a contract, if at all it is the respondents who are entitled to compensation. I, therefore, reject the said argument also. No other point has been urged. This civil revision is without any force and is accordingly dismissed with costs.

 

H.B.T./A‑126/L Revision petition dismissed.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email