PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

IJAZ UL HAQ vs Mrs — 2023 PLD 653 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Citation
2023 PLD 653 SUPREME-COURT
Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year
2023
Reporter
PLD
Parties
IJAZ UL HAQ vs Mrs
Subject matter
Civil
Provisions referred to
S. 230---S; Contract Act (IX of 1872); Contract Act; Specific Relief Act

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

Judgment text as reported

IJAZ UL HAQ VS Mrs. MAROOF BEGUM AHMED Ss. 12 & 27---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 230---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell immoveable property---Suit filed by plaintiff (vendee) against Attorney of owner of the property without impleading the latter -- Where plaintiff subsequently applied to amend the plaint to include the owner of the property as a defendant---Where limitation period to the extent of the owner of property had expired---Whether the plaintiff could maintain a suit against the Attorney for specific performance of the contract, particularly when it was not within time to the extent of the necessary party, that is to say, the owner of the property---Held, that recitals of the contract between the plaintiff and the Attorney and the evidence brought on record suggested that the agent/Attorney, had disclosed the identity of the principal (owner of the property) and intended to impose the obligations of the contract upon the owner of the property and also secured its advantages to her---Attorney had no beneficial interest in the contract---General rule is that that where a contract is made for and on account of the principal and in his name, and the agent has no beneficial interest in the contract, the right of action upon the contract is in the principal alone and the agent neither can sue and be sued upon it---Said principle is also embedded in Section 230 of the Contract Act, 1872---Agent/Attorney, acted for and on behalf of the owner of the property and thus suit for specific performance of the contract was not maintainable against the owner, especially when the plaintiff had added the owner after the prescribed period of limitation, and secondly, owner's status in it, at best, could only be regarded as a proper party and, in terms of Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, specific performance of the contract also could not be sought against the owner.

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English