Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AKHTAR BEGUM VS Respondent: ZAHOOR AHMADHonorable Justice Saad Saood Jan
1988 S C M R 1085
1988 S C M R 1085
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan,JJ
Mst. AKHTAR BEGUM and others‑‑Petitioners versus ZAHOOR AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No. 914. of 1987, decided on 4th April, 1988.
(From the judgment dated 18‑11‑1987 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.S.A. No.754 of 1976).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Specific performance of .agreement‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Finding of fact, interference with‑‑Agreements to sell house executed with petitioner and respondent‑‑Agreement with respondent being prior in time, his suit for specific performance decreed‑‑Plea that before petitioner entered into agreement with vendor, the latter had already rescinded his agreement with respondent not entertained‑ There being no justification to interfere with finding of High Court, leave to appeal was refused.
Muhammad Akram Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court and Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
M.M. Saeed Baig, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri. Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
Date of hearing: 4th April, 1988.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The dispute in this petition for special leave to appeal relates to a house owned by Muhammad Akram, respondent No.2. He executed two agreements of sale in respect of the house; one in favour of Muhammad Yaqoob, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners, and the other in favour of Zahoor Ahmad, respondent No.1. Admittedly, the agreement with Zahoor Ahmad was prior in time to that with Muhammad Yaqoob. It is not denied that Zahoor Ahmad had sent a notice to Muhammad Yaqoob informing him about his agreement with Muhammad Akram before Muhammad Yaqoob undertook to purchase the house. The contention of Muhammad Yaqoob at the trial was that before he entered into agreement with Muhammad Akram, the latter had already rescinded his agreement with Zahoor Ahmad. The High Court has rejected this contention and we see no justification to interfere with the finding of the High Court. In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in decreeing the suit of Zahoor Ahmad for specific performance. Leave is refused.
M.L./M‑405/S Petition dismissed.