JAVED IQBAL vs ABDUL RASHEED TAGR Ss — 2025 PLD 125 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

JAVED IQBAL VS ABDUL RASHEED TAGR Ss. 12, 42 & 54---Suit for declaration, specific performance and permanent injunction---Compromise agreement---Property yet to be identified, specific performance of---Scope of the suit and frame of decree---During the pendency of suit before the Trial Court (Single Judge of the High Court), an application was filed praying to decree the suit on basis of compromise (compromise application); the Court, however, disposed of said compromise application considering it appropriate to have decreed the suit only in terms of one paragraph of the compromise application whereas rest of the paragraphs of compromise application were not considered as they were found beyond scope of the suit---Appellant/plaintiff filed appeal on the ground that rest of the contents of the compromise application ought to have been considered and a cumulative decree by allowing entire/all terms of application should have been passed---Validity---Scope of the suit was limited to the extent of one property described in the prayer clause (a)---There was nothing in the prayer clauses which could have described and/or pointed out any other property and/or any contingent event of any proposed allotment---Specific performance agreement itself may have been contingent upon events that related to the happening of an event when the defendant/respondent may have been allotted another piece of land from Government of Sindh/Board of Revenue in lieu of suit land or otherwise but that was not the precise relief claimed in the suit in the prayer clauses---Suit was for specific property and not for performance of entire agreement---Prayer clauses, insofar as the events described in paragraphs Nos. 3 and 4 of the compromise application were concerned, were totally silent---These paragraphs talked about some alternate land in lieu of the suit land, which alternate land/ property till date was non-existent---Decree could have either been passed in respect of a property mentioned in the prayer clause (a) or the relief could have been declined but in no way a property, which was yet to be identified, could also form part of the decree---Agreement/ compromise application may have been contingent upon some future events but the decree to be passed in this regard would be a futile attempt and/or would not be fruitful for either of the parties which entered into a compromise---Contingent agreement may form a valid contract but the specific performance is sought only in respect of an identified property---Execution of such agreement may be lawful and may have been entered into and/or taken place between the parties but its lawfulness and the performance was to be determined on the touchstone of facts and law applicable thereon, hence, it could not be preconceived (as was not even prayed in the prayer) that on the happening of such events, the appellant/plaintiff would automatically seek fruits of such agreement by virtue of the purported decree which they (parties) claimed by virtue of a compromise application---Precisely the scope of the suit and frame of decree which could have been passed, was a land mentioned in prayer clause (a) and nothing else could have been done insofar as the future events and/or a property which was still not in existence---Thus, the impugned order was found to be lawful and the discretion as exercised by the Single Judge of High Court could not be interfered or replaced by another discretion by the Appellate/High Court---Appeal was dismissed.

JAVED IQBAL vs ABDUL RASHEED TAGR Ss — 2025 PLD 125 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD