MUHAMMAD ASIF vs Ch — 2025 PLD 572 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 ASIF VS Ch. MUHAMMAD HANIF Ss. 12, 21(c) & 22---agreement to sell, legality of---Description of subject property unclear---Effect---Concurrent findings of the courts below should not be interfered with by the High Court in second appeal if same are not contrary to law---The principal issue requiring determination in the present appeal was as to "whether the suit for specific performance could be decreed where the agreement to sell lacked reasonable certainty in terms of land description"---Facts, in brief, were that the appellant (vendee) filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement dated 21.04.2007, alleging that the predecessor (vendor) of the respondents had agreed to sell certain land---However, the land description was vague and lacked precise identification such as killa, square, or khasra numbers---Even the appellant's attorney could not recall these details of land in his testimony---Trial Court declined specific performance due to the uncertainty in the agreement's terms---The appeal before the first appellate court filed by the appellant was also dismissed---appellant (vendee) then filed second appeal before the High Court, arguing that the agreement had been proven and should have been specifically enforced---Held: S. 21(c) of the Specific Relief act, 1877 does not permit to specifically enforce a contract the terms of which the court cannot find with reasonable certainty---In order to succeed in a suit for specific performance of a contract, claimant has to assert that a valid and enforceable contract existed between him and the other side beside clearly pleading the terms and conditions on the basis of which the contract was executed which he desired to be specifically performed---Specific performance is by no means an absolute right but one which rests entirely in judicial discretion and always with reference to facts of a particular case---Where Trial Court has exercised its discretion in one way, which is judicially exercised on sound principles and the decree is affirmed by the appellate Court, then the High Court in second appeal should not interfere with this discretion, unless the same is contrary to law or usage having force of law---While refusing specific performance of the agreement the Trial Court exercised the discretion on sound and reasonable basis, which were upheld by the first appellate court and the same required no interference in second appeal before the High Court---The second appeal lacking any merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD ASIF vs Ch — 2025 PLD 572 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD