MUHAMMAD ASHRAF ANJUM vs SABIR HUSSAIN — 2026 SCMR 36 SUPREME-COURT

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

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF ANJUM VS SABIR HUSSAIN. S. 55---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Time being essence of the contract---Principle and applicability---Determinative factor---Intention of the contracting parties. In a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, the determination whether time is of the essence of the contract depends upon the intention of the parties as reflected from the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement. Held: Where there is a clear intention of the parties, as appears from the stipulations contained in the agreement, to treat time as essence of the contract, the Court cannot attribute a different intention to the parties and cannot specifically enforce the contract at the instance of a vendee who has failed to perform his part of the contractual obligations within the stipulated period. The Supreme Court observed that in cases relating to specific performance, equity governs the rights of the parties and does not rigidly adhere only to the express terms of the contract. The Court must examine the substance and circumstances of the agreement to ascertain whether the parties intended that performance should be completed within a specific period and whether completion within such period was an essential condition of the transaction. Where the agreement itself provides consequences for failure to perform contractual obligations within the prescribed time, such stipulation demonstrates the intention of the parties that time was to be treated as essence of the contract. A Court exercising equitable jurisdiction cannot ignore the contractual terms or grant specific performance in favour of a party who has failed to comply with essential obligations undertaken by him. The Supreme Court held that the intention of the contracting parties remains the determining factor for deciding whether time is the essence of the contract. Where such intention is clearly manifested from the agreement, the Court is bound to give effect to the same and cannot rewrite the contract or substitute a different understanding.

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF ANJUM vs SABIR HUSSAIN — 2026 SCMR 36 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR