Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MADAD KHAN VS Respondent: Haji HAKIM GULHonorable Justice MUNIR A. SHEIKHCh. Muhammad Akram,M. Ikram Ch
2004 S C M R 367
2004 S C M R 367
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Munir A. Sheikh, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Rana Bhagwandas, JJ
MADAD KHAN and others-- -Appellants
versus
Haji HAKIM GUL and others---Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1169 of 1997, decided on 13tY. November, 2003.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 19-9-1997 of the Peshawar High Court passed in R. F. A. No. 13 of 1993).
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----S.12---Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S.16---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Maintainability---During pendency of the suit, the land was acquired by the Authorities---Trial Court dismissed the suit for the reason that after acquisition, the vendor was no longer vested with the ownership rights in the property---High Curt, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Trial Court---Validity---Acquisition of land did not in any manner frustrate the agreement of sale, for if a decree was granted for specific performance of the agreement, the vendee would step into the shoes of the vendor for the purpose of receipt of compensation awarded qua the acquisition---Judgment passed by High Court did not stiffer from any illegality and the case was rightly remanded to the Trial Court.
Joydeb Agarwala v. Baitulmal Karkhana Ltd. PLD 1965 SC 37; Pirzada Amir Hassan and others v. Mrs. Shamim Shah Nawaz and others 1984 CLC 3080 and Haji Hakeem Gul and others v. Madad Khan and others 1998 MLD 1260 ref.
Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.
M. Ikram Ch., Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 13th November, 2003.
JUDGMENT
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19-9-1997 of the Peshawar High Court whereby on acceptance of appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 13-1-1993 of dismissal of their suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, the case has been remanded with permission to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint to claim consequential relief of recovery of compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act against the land in question after its acquisition.
2. The respondents filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 21-7-1990. During the pendency of the suit, the land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The trial Court upheld the objection raised on behalf of the defendants that in such situation, the agreement of sale stood frustrated as the vendor was no longer vested with the ownership rights in the property and the suit dismissed through judgment dated 13-1-1993 against which appeal filed by the respondents has been accepted by the Peshawar High Court and the case remanded as noted above.
3. On the last date of hearing i.e. 30-10-2003, the case was adjourned for today on the request of Mr. Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, learned counsel for the appellants. An application was filed by Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate-on-Record on 10-11-2003 for adjournment of the case on the ground that Mr. Abdul Samad; Advocate Supreme Court, was indisposed. Mr. Abdul Samad, Advocate Supreme Court appeared before this Court yesterday in a case.
4. We are not inclined to adjourn the case and asked Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate-on-Record to address arguments in support of this appeal. He expressed his inability to do so, therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after examining the record and hearing learned counsel for the respondents. .
5. It has been consistently held by the superior Courts in the cases of Joydeb Agarwala v. Baitulmal Karkhana Ltd. PLD 1965 SC 37; Pirzada Amir Hassan and others v. Mrs. Shamim Shah Nawaz and others 1984 CLC 3080 and Haji Hakeem Gul and others v. Madad Khan and others 1998 MLD 1260 that acquisition of land does not in any manner frustrate the agreement of sale, for if a decree is granted for specific performance of the same, the vendee would step into the shoes of the vendor for the purpose of receipt of compensation awarded qua the acquisition.
6. In view of this, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, this appeal has no merits which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
7. Keeping in view that the case is fairly old one, the trial Court is hereby directed to decide the same expeditiously and dispose of the same before 31-7-2004.
M.H./M-943/S Appeal dismissed.