ADEEL KHALEEL vs SHAHID HASSAN S — 2025 CLC 1599 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.

ADEEL KHALEEL VS SHAHID HASSAN S. 12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115(1), 'second proviso'---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Conditional decree---Order for depositing remaining sale consideration failing which suit would stand dismissed---Dispute regarding remaining sale consideration---Belated filing of application for rectification of remaining sale consideration amount---Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court---Limitation---Brief facts of the matter were that the petitioner (vendee) filed a suit for specific performance which was decreed conditionally, directing the petitioner to deposit the remaining sale consideration, failing which the suit would stand dismissed---The petitioner, instead of depositing the specified amount, filed an application disputing the determined amount by the trial court, which application was dismissed---A revision petition filed against that dismissal was dismissed as time-barred---The petitioner challenged the dismissal through a Constitutional petition, arguing that no specific limitation period existed under S. 115 C.P.C. for filing revision---Pivotal questions for determination before the High Court were; (i) "whether the petitioner's failure to deposit the remaining sale consideration within the stipulated timeframe rendered the decree ineffective, and whether the trial court had any jurisdiction to entertain his subsequent application for rectification of amount after the lapse of time"; & (ii)"whether the revision petition filed after more than one year was maintainable despite the statutory bar under the second proviso to S. 115(1) C.P.C."---Held: Had there been any dispute with regard to the remaining sale consideration, the petitioner must have been vigilant enough to move for the rectification of the judgment swiftly but he remained waiting till the time to deposit expired---When a decree is conditional and it stipulated the condition as well as the consequence of non-fulfillment of such condition the court would become functus officio on the target date---As regards the contention of the petitioner that his application was well within time, if its limitation was computed from the date decree was drawn, bare perusal of the judgment made it clear that the time for deposit of remaining sale consideration started from the date of passing of the decree and not from the date when the decree sheet was drawn, even otherwise if date of preparation of the decree was considered and the if the application of the petitioner would be treated as well within time, he was then obliged to deposit at least the amount which he allegedly specified, being the remaining consideration as per his estimation to show his bona fide but it was not done either before the trial court or the revisional court---Moreover, it was made obligatory that a revision application shall be made within ninety days of the decision of the subordinate court---Revision was filed after passing of about more than a year, which was adjudged as barred by time and rightly so---Even otherwise the petitioner had remained indolent in prosecuting his cause right from the passing of the decree---The petitioner was thus precluded to ask the court to come to his rescue on the principles of equity---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

ADEEL KHALEEL vs SHAHID HASSAN S — 2025 CLC 1599 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC