MUHAMMAD ALAM vs DARBARI KHAN S — 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 S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Discretionary relief---Balance sale consideration---Buyer's willingness and readiness to make payment(s), absence of---Petitioner' suit was concurrently dismissed---Validity---For the relief of specific performance, which is discretionary in its nature, the petitioner was expected to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of agreement from the date of its execution till the date fixed for payment of balance sale consideration; and also had to prove that he did take necessary steps for the performance of his part---Record revealed that the petitioner could not prove having ever paid or tendered for payment the balance amount of consideration nor produced any documentary evidence such as cheque, pay order, for payment of balance consideration---So much so, after the filing of suit till the filing of appeal no attempt was made to deposit the balance sale price---It was, therefore, a case in which the discretionary jurisdiction could not be exercised in his favour and was rightly declined by the Courts below---Buyer's primary obligation in a contract of sale is to make payment of the balance sale consideration as stipulated in the contract and that if the seller refuses to receive payment the buyer must establish that he had the required money which was kept aside for the seller, for instance, by making a pay order or cashier cheque in his name as this would show that the buyer no longer had access to the sale consideration and that alternatively the buyer could have deposited it in court---If a buyer does not fulfill its primary obligations to secure/tender the sale consideration and files suit and does so without depositing the sale consideration in court, the seller is placed in an advantageous position---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 S — 2025 CLC 638 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC