VISIONARY BALUCHISTAN MEDIA CORPORATION vs Mst — 2026 CLC 377 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.

VISIONARY BALUCHISTAN MEDIA CORPORATION VS Mst. SHAHNAZ ABID Ss.12 & 22---Specific performance of agreement to sell---Discretionary relief, grant of---Scope---The discretionary relief can be extended to a person whose actions are anchored in bona fide while pursuing a contract, and he is seen to be making genuine efforts to perform his part of the agreement---Anyone whose action speaks otherwise will not be held entitled to such a relief. Citation Name: 2026 CLC 377 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case VISIONARY BALUCHISTAN MEDIA CORPORATION VS Mst. SHAHNAZ ABID Ss.12 & 22---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.55---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art.113---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell filed after a seven years delay---Time being essence of contract---Principle---Discretionary relief, granting of---Scope---Failure to deposit balance sale consideration at institution of suit---Impact on entitlement to relief stated---Brief facts were that the appellant (vendee) and respondent (vendor) entered into a sale agreement regarding suit property, under which only Rs.14,00,000/- of the agreed Rs.19 million sale consideration was paid, and the balance was required to be cleared under a compromise order stipulating payment by 07.07.2013---The appellant neither complied with the compromise terms nor made any further payment, and after several years filed suit for specific performance, which was rejected under O.VII R.11, C.P.C. as barred by limitation---The issue before the High Court was "whether the appellant's suit for specific performance which was filed years after the agreed timelines and without payment of the remaining consideration, was maintainable in law and within limitation, so as to justify interference with the rejection of plaint and denial of discretionary relief?"---Held: Nothing by the appellant was articulated to explain such inordinate delay, let alone making efforts to make payment of remaining sale consideration in time---Single Judge had taken into account the fact that the contract between the parties was more than a decade old and worth of the subject property had meanwhile increased manifold; hence, such development i.e. property getting hugely costly was sufficient to deny the discretionary relief to the appellant---On the point of limitation, it had been held by the Single Judge that the sale agreement was executed on 19.04.2012 and the plaint was presented on 09.11.2019 after seven years, whereas, under Art.113 of the Limitation Act, appellant had only three years to file suit for seeking enforcement of the contract from the date of refusal---Not only the suit was barred by time but because of failure of the appellant to adhere to the terms and conditions mentioned in the compromise order he had made himself disentitled to seek discretionary relief of specific performance by the respondent---Further, due to failure of appellant to deposit the remaining sale consideration in the Court at the time of instituting the suit, the case of the appellant seeking relief of specific performance got on weaker footings from the very inception---In the present case, relevant material showing genuine efforts of the appellant to adhere to his part of the agreement was lacking---Further, no justification had been articulated to warrant in action of the appellant to file the suit within time firstly, and secondly his failure to deposit the remaining sale consideration within time in the Court even---The plaint had been rightly rejected under O.VII, R.11 of C.P.C.---No illegality or error in the impugned order to justify its reversal was found---Present appeal was without any merit and was dismissed. Citation Name: 2026 CLC 377 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case VISIONARY BALUCHISTAN MEDIA CORPORATION VS Mst. SHAHNAZ ABID Ss.12 & 22---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.55---Time being essence of contract---Principle---Scope---When the time is essence of the agreement, its violation will render the defaulting party disentitled to Court's interference in the shape of discretionary relief.

VISIONARY BALUCHISTAN MEDIA CORPORATION vs Mst — 2026 CLC 377 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC