Rana MUNIR AHMED KHAN vs JAWAID SARWAR Ss — 2025 PLD 242 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.

Rana MUNIR AHMED KHAN VS JAWAID SARWAR Ss. 2(3), 2(10), 38 & O.XXI---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss. 8, 12 & 54---Compromise decree, scope of---Execution, scope of---Suit for specific performance, recovery of possession, permanent injunction and compensation---Decree holder cannot seek possession on behalf of non-parties---Suit was decreed on the basis of compromise wherein the judgment debtors acknowledged the decree holder's financial assistance in resolving their disputes with their creditor and undertook to pay a sum of Rs.14,100,000/- to the decree holder by 01.03.2016---In the event of default, judgment debtor No. 2 agreed to subdivide her property and transfer four plots to the decree holder's daughters in partial satisfaction of the debt amounting to Rs.11,600,000/-, and an additional plot to adjust the remaining Rs.2,500,000/- and non-compliance with these terms would entitle the decree holder to seek enforcement through intervention of the Court---When respondent No.1 defaulted, execution proceedings were filed by decree holder to enforce the compromise decree---Legal question before the Court was whether a decree-holder, in whose favour a compromise decree has been passed based on acknowledgment of debt and conditional transfer of property to third parties (his children), possesses the locus standi to seek execution for possession on behalf of those third parties, particularly when registered sale deeds have already been executed in their favour?--- Held: Single Judge had meticulously observed that judgment debtor No.2 executed sale deeds in favour of two daughters and two sons of the decree holder, thereby establishing privity of contract directly with them---Should the children of the decree holder be aggrieved by the non-delivery of possession despite the sale deeds, it was incumbent upon them to initiate legal proceedings to claim possession---The decree holder lacked locus standi to seek possession on their behalf through an execution application---admittedly, in the present case, both the daughters and sons of the decree holder were not parties to the suit, the compromise application, or the execution proceedings---Consequently, as majors, they must have sued for possession if they were aggrieved under S. 8 of the Specific Relief act, 1877---Therefore, the children of the decree holder, not being parties to the original proceedings, were not directly entitled to the benefits of the compromise decree---They must have independently established their claims through appropriate legal channels---a compromise decree is executable only if it explicitly encompasses the relief sought by the parties involved---This necessitates that the decree clearly address and provide for the specific relief agreed upon in the compromise---In the absence of such explicit coverage, the compromise decree cannot be executed as it stands---In such scenarios, the parties must institute a fresh suit to enforce the compromise agreement---This fresh suit is imperative to obtain a new decree that accurately reflects the terms of the compromise and the relief sought---appeals were dismissed. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 242 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Rana MUNIR AHMED KHAN VS JAWAID SARWAR Ss. 2(3), 2(10), 38 & O.XXI---Execution of decrees---Scope---Compromise decree---Scope and enforceability---Terms "decree-holder" and "judgment debtor"---Definitions---Decree holder cannot seek possession on behalf of non-parties---Section 38 and O. XXI of the C.P.C. govern the execution of decrees---Under S. 38, C.P.C., a decree may be executed either by the court which passed it or by a court to which it is transferred for execution---This provision grants the decree-holder the discretion to seek execution from either the original court that issued the decree or a transferee court---Order XXI, C.P.C. sets out the procedures, modalities, and processes related to execution proceedings---In terms of definitions, S. 2(3), C.P.C. defines a "decree-holder" as any person in whose favour a decree or an executable order has been passed---Conversely, S. 2(10), C.P.C. defines a "judgment-debtor" as any person against whom a decree or an executable order has been passed---The children of the decree holder in the instant case, in whose favour the sale deeds were executed, did not come under the definition of "decree-holder" since no decree was passed in their favour---Thus, the decree holder lacked the locus standi under the execution framework of S. 38 and O. XXI, C.P.C. to seek possession on behalf of third parties (his children), who were not parties to the original proceedings who must independently seek redress for possession---Appeals were dismissed. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 242 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Rana MUNIR AHMED KHAN VS JAWAID SARWAR S.12---Specific performance, relief of---Nature and Scope---Implied right to possession in decree for specific performance---Decree holder entitled to possession---Fulfillment of contractual obligations in specific performance cases---Whether a decree for specific performance entitles the decree holder to possession of the property even when the relief of possession was not expressly mentioned in the plaint or compromise agreement?---Held: Insofar as the contention that suit filed by the decree holder was for the specific performance of a mutual agreement and no relief of possession was sought in the said suit is concerned it is settled law that a suit for specific performance is always a suit for possession---This principle is grounded in the understanding that the specific performance of a contract inherently involves the transfer of possession of the property in question---When a court decrees specific performance, it essentially orders the fulfilment of the contractual obligations which includes delivery of possession to the party entitled under the agreement---Even if the suit or terms and conditions of compromise do not explicitly seek possession, the compromise decree for specific performance implicitly incudes the right to possession---This legal interpretation ensures that the decree holder receives the full benefit of the contract as intended, including the possession of the property---Appeals along with pending applications were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Rana MUNIR AHMED KHAN vs JAWAID SARWAR Ss — 2025 PLD 242 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD