2021 PLD 236 ISLAMABAD

Full text

Ms. SARA BIBI VS MUHAMMAD SALEEM Ss. 12 & 22---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Pre-conditions---Words "readiness" and "willingness"---Connotation---Respondent-plaintiff sought specific performance of oral agreement to sell and appellant-defendant resisted the same on the plea that balance consideration amount was not paid within time specified in agreement therefore, the same was forfeited---Suit was decreed by Trial Court in favour of respondent-plaintiff---Validity---Respondent-plaintiff in his suit was to demonstrate that he was ready, willing and able to perform his part of contract throughout the proceedings till the date of decree---If prior to that, plaintiff negative his readiness, willingness or ability to perform his part of contract by his conduct, he could not claim specific performance of the contract---"Readiness" denotes capacity of a purchaser to purchase land while word "willingness" denotes his conduct---Plaintiff seeking benefit of specific performance of a contract had to manifest that his conduct was without a blemish throughout, entitling him to specific relief---Factum of readiness, willingness and ability to perform his part of contract was to be adjudged with reference to the conduct of party and attending circumstances---At no stage, prior to institution of suit for specific performance respondent-plaintiff issued notice to appellant-defendant demanding transfer of suit properties upon payment of balance sale consideration---Such fact was admitted by respondent-plaintiff, who also did not file any application for deposit of remaining sale consideration before Trial Court---Trial Court erred in decreeing suit of respondent-plaintiff for specific performance of agreement---Petitions seeking respondent-plaintiff's eviction from portions of suit properties in his occupation were dismissed by the Court of Rent Controller but such by itself would not make respondent-plaintiff undisputed lawful owner of suit properties---Court of Rent Controller did not have jurisdiction to determine disputes as to title of demised premises---Trial Court should have exercised discretion not to decree suit for specific performance of agreement filed by respondent-plaintiff---High Court directed appellant-defendant to return earnest money to respondent-plaintiff with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum and dismissed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Appeal was allowed accordingly.