NIAZ MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD NAVEED KHAN S — 2025 PLD 21 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

NIAZ MUHAMMAD VS MUHAMMAD NAVEED KHAN S.31---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.54---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 12 & 24(b)---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell immoveable property---Non-deposit of remaining sale consideration--- Bilateral/contingent contracts--- Scope--- Trial Court dismissed the suit for non-compliance for order of deposit of remaining sale consideration---Question before High Court was whether appellant seeking enforcement of agreement to sell in a bilateral/contingent contracts was required to deposit remaining sale consideration in Trial Court---Contention of the appellant was that the contracts were contingent being based on the happening of some future or subsequent events and were not enforceable till the occurrence of that events, therefore, suit of the appellant could not be dismissed solely for non-deposit of remaining sale consideration in Court---Validity---Both the agreements were bilateral agreements and in a bilateral agreement, the contracting parties promised each other that they would perform or refrain from performing an act---Remaining sale consideration was not agreed to be paid in lump sum rather it had been agreed upon that the appellant would pay the remaining sale consideration after plotting and sale of the suit property, which clearly indicated that it was a commercial type of bilateral agreement between the parties---Agreement to sell as a whole was to be considered and read, but the Trial Court before passing the orders overlooked the whole contents of bilateral agreement relied upon by the appellant---Agreement executed between the parties was a contingent contract, which imposed pre-condition for implementing the terms of the contract; it was a qualified contract and would only come into being when the conditions incorporated therein were fulfilled---Fulfillment of the conditions was the transformation of that potentiality into actuality---Conversely, the failure of the condition was the failure of that chance to become a fact---Where execution of a future contract is a condition or a term of the bargain, there cannot be an enforceable contract unless the condition or term is fulfilled---Impugned orders of Trial Court were not sustainable, in circumstances---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 21 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NIAZ MUHAMMAD VS MUHAMMAD NAVEED KHAN O. XLI, Rr.1 & 20 & S.153---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.22---Suo motu power of High Court to implead a party---Scope---Plea of non-impleadment of one of defendants as a respondent in the appeal after the expiry of period of limitation---Validity---Appeal, which is the continuation of suit, is a document of accusation for judicial examination by higher forum---Where a party is not impleaded inadvertently, the High Court is empowered to act suo motu or on the behalf of party irrespective of the provisions of S.22 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Section 153, C.P.C., preserves the power of the Court to amend, inter alia, any proceedings in a suit or all necessary amendments at any time for the purpose of determining the real question or issue and a party should not be denied relief on account of mere technicalities in the procedural law, which is intended and designed to foster the cause of justice and not to defeat it---This power can be exercised at any time during pendency of the lis and even after the passage of the decree at the appellate stage---High Court while exercising suo motu power impleaded the omitted defendant as respondent and allowed the appeal accordingly.

NIAZ MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD NAVEED KHAN S — 2025 PLD 21 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD