Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Mirza MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BAIG VS Respondent: Rana ATTA MUHAMMAD
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Mian Saqib Nisar Title: Mirza MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BAIG vs Rana ATTA MUHAMMAD Case No.: Regular Second Appeal No, 66 of 2007 Date of Judgment:2007-09-17 Reported As: 2008 YLR 71 Result: Appeal dismissed
Judgment ORDER ' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The respondent brought a suit for the specific performance against the appellant, which has been decreed by the learned trial Court; the appellant's first appeal has also been dismissed. The sale agreement between the parties is admitted and also the receipt of Rs,2,50,000 as advance by the respondent to the appellant. However, the appellant's case is that the respondent in fact had violated the terms of the agreement and it is he who had failed to perform his part thereof; in this behalf, much emphasis has been laid upon agreement Exh.P.1, according to which the respondent was obliged to permit the appellant to dig some land for taking away the earth/mud. 2. However, when questioned, if it is mentioned in either of the agreements that these are interdependent and in case the respondent refuses the appellant to take away the earth, he will be disentitled to seek the specific enforcement of his other main agreement, learned counsel for the appellant has very candidly stated in the negative; obviously, if such term is not there how could the respondent be precluded to enforce the agreement to sell, the terms of which he has fulfilled and there is no default attributed to him in this behalf. It is thus on the basis of the admitted position and also on account of the true appreciation of the evidence that the two Courts below have given the concurrent finding in favour of the respondent and against the appellant that the respondent is entitled to the grant of the decree of the specific enforcement. No error in reading of the evidence etc. Or any other illegality contrary to the law has been found calling for interference in the second appeal. Dismissed.