MUHAMMAD RIAZ HUSSAIN vs ZAHOOR UL HASSAN S — 2021 SCMR 431 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD RIAZ HUSSAIN VS ZAHOOR UL HASSAN S. 12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 96(3)---Specific performance of agreement to sell immoveable property---Time period for payment of balance consideration---Vendee challenging consent decree of Trial Court on merits to gain further time for payment of balance consideration---Legality---Plaintiff-vendee was not interested in performing his obligations under the sale agreement as he failed to pay the balance consideration amount of Rs. 15.2 Million to the defendant-vendor by 12-5-2008 as recorded in the sale agreement---Plaintiff only filed a suit for specific performance on 9-3-2011 in response to the suit of rescission of contract filed by the defendant---Subsequently Trial Court issued a consent decree explicitly stating that the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff would stand dismissed if the balance consideration amount was not paid within 30 days from the date of judgment---Plaintiff challenged such consent decree on merits before the Appellate Court, with the intention to gain further time for the balance payment, which indicated that when he consented to the Trial Court's consent decree he was not ready and willing to perform his obligations thereunder---Besides the plaintiff had filed an appeal against a consent decree on its merits which was not permissible under S. 96(3) of the C.P.C.---Plaintiff's appeal was dismissed on 23.12.2016 by the Appellate Court which granted the plaintiff 15 days' time to make the requisite deposit of balance payment, which constituted a wrongful exercise of discretion by the Appellate Court as the appeal was not maintainable and also granted undue advantage upon the plaintiff---Rather than challenging the said judgment and decree of Appellate Court before the High Court the plaintiff abandoned his pleas and complied with the appellate judgment by making the requisite balance deposit within 15 days on 6.1.2017---Trial Court and the Appellate Court ought not to have exercised their discretion to grant the plaintiff the remedy of specific performance which was inequitable in the circumstances of the case---Accordingly the suit for specific performance filed by plaintiff was dismissed, and Supreme Court directed that the balance amount of Rs. 15.2 Million deposited by the plaintiff in Court shall be refunded to him; that since issue of refund of earnest money was disputed between the parties, thus, the plaintiff was at liberty to avail the remedies available under the law for claiming and recovering the said amount in accordance with law---Appeal was allowed. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 431 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RIAZ HUSSAIN VS ZAHOOR UL HASSAN Ss. 12 & 22--- Discretion of court as to decreeing specific performance--- Scope--- Remedy of specific performance was discretionary and could not be claimed as of right by a party---Grant of specific performance was not mandatory and could be refused by a Court where the circumstances so required---Instead of mechanically granting the relief of specific performance to every party, Courts should examine the circumstances of each case to ascertain whether such relief was equitable on the facts.

MUHAMMAD RIAZ HUSSAIN vs ZAHOOR UL HASSAN S — 2021 SCMR 431 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 SCMR