Sheikh KHALID JAVAID vs SHAMAS UD DIN CHISHTI S — 2025 CLC 513 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.

Sheikh KHALID JAVAID VS SHAMAS UD DIN CHISHTI S. 12---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 54---Suit for specific performance of contract for immovable property---Cut-off date for payment of balance sale consideration---Conduct of the vendee for issuance of decree of specific performance---Relevancy---Failure of respondent/plaintiff to deposit the remaining sale consideration throughout the proceedings showing his lack of readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligation---Plea of pending proceedings before the National Accountability Bureau (NAB)---Unexplained delay in filing the suit---Effect---Conditional offer made by the petitioner/defendant during pendency of suit before Trial Court, became invalid owing to non-fulfillment by the respondent---Appellate Court treating that offer as admission of the defendant and accepted the appeal of the respondent---Validity---Respondent entered into the agreement with the petitioner and thereafter, entangled the latter into litigation and avoided the payment of the balance consideration amount on one pretext or the other, meaning thereby that the respondent was neither willing nor ready to pay the balance amount of consideration and the Appellate Court below was not justified in relying on the admission of execution of the agreement by the petitioner before the Trial Court to decree the suit of the respondent---In fact, when the direction of the Trial Court was not complied with by the respondent, the Trial Court should have immediately proceeded to dismiss the suit---Conditional offer made by the petitioner before the Trial Court to decree the suit for specific performance of the contract, which was not accepted by the respondent did not remain valid at the appellate stage, thus, it was unjustified to pass the judgment and decree on the basis of an offer which no longer existed in favour of respondent, who had acted in a contumacious manner---Performance of the contract should not have been seen from the date when it was suitable to the respondent---To adjudge whether the respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the court had to take into consideration the conduct of the respondent prior as well as subsequent to the institution of the suit along with other attending circumstances---Amount of consideration which respondent had to pay to the petitioner must necessarily be proved to be available and right from the cut-off date set for completion of the contract till date of the decree, the respondent must prove that he was ready and had always been willing to perform his part of the contract---Conduct of the respondent had been far from fair and he had failed to make out a case for the grant of any equitable relief since his conduct amply showed that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract: neither when the suit was instituted; nor when the interim injunction was granted; nor throughout the proceedings before the Trial Court, and only deposited the amount, at the appellate stage, when it suited him---There was no explanation in the suit as to why the respondent remained mum for a period of almost one year after the cut-off-date and never acted promptly to institute the suit---Civil revision was allowed, in circumstances with a direction to return the earnest money already received by the petitioner.

Sheikh KHALID JAVAID vs SHAMAS UD DIN CHISHTI S — 2025 CLC 513 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC