Citation Name: 2025 PLD 298 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mrs. ANJUM ARA vs SHABBIR A

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

Citation Name: 2025 PLD 298 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mrs. ANJUM ARA VS SHABBIR A. HALAI S. 54---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss. 8, 12 & 39---Balance sale consideration---Deposit in court---Scope---agreement to sell, performance of---Vendor/appellant instituted a suit for cancellation of agreement to sell and restoration of possession---Vendee/respondent instituted a suit for specific performance---Single Judge decided the suit directing the vendee to deposit the balance sale consideration along with 10% per annum simple markup from the date of filing the case and Rs.50,000/- per month being monthly rent for utilizing the suit property and vendor was also directed to execute a conveyance deed in favour of the vendee handing over all original documents of the suit property---Validity---Single Judge rightfully dismissed the vendor's suit due to her failure to fulfil her obligations---Vendee after payment of earnest money remained in possession of the suit property after completion of construction work and continued to benefit from its use---Significant economic changes, such as currency devaluation and an appreciation in the property's value further exacerbated the vendor's position---There is no statutory mandate under the Specific Relief act, 1877, compelling the plaintiff (vendee) to tender the outstanding sale consideration in court at the time of filing or presenting the plaint, nor at the admission of the suit before the issuance of summons to the defendant---Deposit of the sale consideration or balance thereof in court is not an automatic or statutory precondition---Instead, such deposit necessitates a specific court order, accompanied by a stipulated timeline and repercussions for non-compliance---Vendee's initial failure to deposit the remaining balance had not inherently disqualified him from seeking specific performance, as long as the court's directive to deposit the balance consideration---adjudications of the Single Judge were predicated upon a meticulous and exhaustive evaluation of the evidentiary material adduced---Vendor's dereliction in procuring the indispensable property documents and the vendee's partial performance were determinative factors that decisively influenced the judgment of Single Judge---Decision to dismiss the vendor's suit while concurrently mandating the vendee to discharge his financial obligations epitomized an equitable and jurisprudentially sound resolution of the dispute---High Court appeals filed by both the parties were dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 PLD 298 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mrs. ANJUM ARA vs SHABBIR A — 2025 PLD 298 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD