IMTIAZ AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF S — 2023 YLR 2603 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

IMTIAZ AHMAD VS MUHAMMAD ASHRAF S.12---Suit for specific performance---Agreement to sell---Extension of time for performance of contract---Time as essence of contract---Scope---Suit for specific performance instituted by predecessor of the respondents was decreed in his favour, which judgment was maintained by the Appellate Court---Contention of the petitioner/ defendant was that agreement contained a default clause (consequence whereof was cancellation of agreement and forfeiture of earnest money), thus the time was essence of contract; and that the plaintiff (predecessor of the respondents) was neither willing nor had finances to pay balance consideration within agreed time---Validity---Time/date for performance was, admittedly, extended for 5 and 1/4th months from the date of performance earlier agreed upon---Primary case of the petitioner/defendant was that a legal notice was issued by him to the plaintiff (predecessor of the respondents) after two months of extension of time/date of performance, calling for the performance of the conditions of contract but default persisted, however, the said fact, being relevant in the context of the controversy, was not proved by him (petitioner)---Even a copy of the said notice (allegedly sent after two months of extension of time/date of performance) was not produced in evidence, leading to adverse inference---Conversely, case of the respondents' predecessor was that the petitioner was required to perform reciprocal obligations, which performance was delayed, whereupon a legal notice was delivered after more than one year of said extended date (time) and on next date suit was instituted---Reply to the said notice by the petitioner, was brought on record in evidence; and factum of legal notice (having been sent )was admitted in said reply---Extension in the time for performance against part-consideration of Rupees one million was admitted---There was a presumption that time was not always the essence of the contract in agreement relating to the sale of immovable property unless intentions contrary thereto were proved---In the present case, fundamental plea of the petitioner was that legal notice was issued after two months of extension of time/date of performance, to convey intent that non-performance would result in cancellation of the contract and forfeiture of the amounts already paid but factum of the said notice was not proved---Said failure coupled with the factum of extension of time for performance were critical facts which convinced the Courts below to dismiss plea that time was the essence of the contract---Balance consideration was paid during the proceedings before the Trial Court---Absence of willingness and non-availability of funds on the part of plaintiff (predecessor of the respondents) were not proved through convincing evidence by the petitioner/defendant---No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

IMTIAZ AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF S — 2023 YLR 2603 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR