Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2024 PLJ 61
Court / Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year of Decision: 2023
Decision Date: 2023-11-02
Parties: Haji Ghulam Rasool and another vs Shah Nawaz and others
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 2023-11-02, officially reported as 2024 PLJ 61. In this matter between Haji Ghulam Rasool and another and Shah Nawaz and others, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
Case cited as PLJ 2024 SC 61
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Ayesha A. Malik, Yahya Afridi Title: Haji Ghulam Rasool and another vs Shah Nawaz and others Case No.: C.Ps. No. 3678 & 3667 of 2022 Date of Judgment:2023-11-02 Reported As: PLJ 2024 SC 61 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment
ORDER Yahya Afridi, J. The petitioners have not only assailed the judgment dated 09.09.2022 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore (the High Court) in RSA No. 229135 of 2018 but also the order dated 05.10.2022 passed in Review Application No. 55751 of 2022. 2. At the very outset, we confronted the learned counsel for the petitioners to explain the delay in filing the suit on 11.11.2007 for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 24.05.2003 (the Agreement), where the limitation of three years is provided under Article 113 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1908 (the Act). 3. In response, the learned counsel contended that as no time was determined under the said agreement between the parties, the period of limitation would commence from the date of refusal to perform the terms of the said agreement by the respondents. He further drew our attention to para 5 of the plaint, wherein it was asserted that the refusal to perform the agreement was intimated to him by a property agent, and finally, the respondents herein categorical intimated their refusal to perform their part of the obligation under the Agreement. 4. Article 113 of the Act provides as under: "Description of suit.Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run.
113. For specific performance of a contract Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is
---
## Page 2
fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused." 5. We have gone through the terms of the Agreement, and note that, no date is fixed for performance, and thus, in such eventuality, the time would commence when the plaintiff has notice that the performance is refused by the opposing contracting party. Though an assertion was made in the pleadings regarding the date, when the cause of action accrued to the petitioners/plaintiffs, and thus the onus was on the petitioners/plaintiffs to prove such refusal of the respondents/defendants to perform. We have reviewed the record and note that the petitioner did not lead credible evidence in a proper manner to prove the date of refusal of the respondents/defendants to perform their obligations under the Agreement. Accordingly, the petitioners were unable to prove that their suit for specific performance of the Agreement was within the prescribed period of three years as provided under Article 113 of the Schedule to the Act. 6. Furthermore, we have noted that the Courts below have correctly adjudged this factual determination and refused the relief to the petitioners on the point of limitation. We have gone through the impugned judgment and find that the same are based on correct appreciation of law and fact and warrant no interference by this Court. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed, and leave refused.