MUHAMMAD ALAM vs DARBARI KHAN First Sched — 2025 CLC 638 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 ALAM VS DARBARI KHAN First Sched., art. 113---Specific Relief act ( I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance, filing of---Limitation---Date of terminus a quo---Suit filed by the petitioner was concurrently dismissed---Validity---Limitation to file a suit for specific performance of sale agreement is regulated by art. 113 of Limitation act, 1908 which provides that if a date is fixed for performance, the suit could be instituted within three years from the date so fixed and if no such date is fixed the suit could be filed when the vendee has noticed that the performance has been refused---Suit of the petitioner falls in the first part of said art. 113 as in the agreement-in-question itself the parties had fixed date for the payment of balance consideration and completion of sale till 01.5.2008---Said fact was also admitted by the petitioner in his statement as witness wherein in cross-examination he stated that it is correct that the agreement was executed on 01.2.2008 and that the suit was instituted on 17.12.2013---It was also admitted that in the agreement it was stipulated that balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was payable till 01.5.2008 and in case of non-payment the agreement would stand rescinded and earnest money would be liable to be forfeited---In view of the admission made in the statement of P.W.1, the plaintiff that agreement provided for a date of terminus a quo, under art. 113 of the Limitation act, suit could be instituted only within three years from the date which the parties had agreed for the completion of the deal---In the present case, the suit was filed after more than five years and seven months from the date fixed in the agreement for payment of balance consideration which was obviously barred by time and it was rightly so concluded by the courts below to be so, which findings did not suffer from any error of law or from any misreading of record---In the present case, after considering all said material facts, the Court below rightly concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to seek specific performance of the agreement---No error of law, misreading and non-reading of evidence or any jurisdictional defect was noticed in the impugned judgements passed by both the Courts below to call for interference---Revision petition was dismissed , in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD ALAM vs DARBARI KHAN First Sched — 2025 CLC 638 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC