MUHAMMAD YASIN vs Mst — 2025 CLC 1660 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.

MUHAMMAD YASIN VS Mst. SEEMAB JABEEN S. 12---Suit for specific performance---Payment of remaining sale amount---Conduct of vendee /plaintiff---Delaying tactics---Effect---Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff directing him to pay the remaining sale consideration within thirty days, which judgment was maintained by the Appellate Court---Contention of the petitioner/plaintiff was that he paid amount of Rs. 500,000/- to female respondent / defendant subsequently, which (payment) was required to be adjudicated on merits by production of evidence and that the Appellate Court made erroneous observations that possession of the suit-property was with him, and that appeal filed by him should not have been dismissed due to non-payment of court-fee---Validity---Notably, non-payment of court-fee was not the basis for dismissal of appeal of the petitioner/plaintiff; it was merely an observation of the Appellate Court that the petitioner was bound to pay the same who had not paid despite repeated opportunities which did not otherwise affect the outcome of the appeal on merits---Further, observation of the Appellate Court that possession of the suit property was with the petitioner was merely an additional observation which also did not affect the outcome of the suit inasmuch as it was explicitly stated in the plaint that an amount (of Rs. 2,895,625/-)was remaining sale consideration and the said claim was conceded by the female respondents, whereafter, the Trial Court rightly decreed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff directing him to pay the said remaining sale consideration within thirty days but he did not pay the same on the pretext that he had paid Rs. 500,000/- to the respondents on account of marriage of daughter which had nothing to do with the transaction alleged by him in the plaint---Said plea/pretext was merely an afterthought and it had been established on record that the petitioner was never ready and willing to pay the remaining sale consideration within the stipulated period mentioned in the agreement and even failed to do so pursuant to the decree / judgment and the earnest money paid by the petitioner to the respondents surely stood forfeited under the forfeiture clause of the agreement executed between the parties---No illegality or infirmity had been noticed in impugned decrees and judgments passed by both the Courts below---Revision, filed by plaintiff, was dismissed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD YASIN vs Mst — 2025 CLC 1660 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC