ANWAR SAJID vs ABDUL RASHID KHAN and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's suit for specific performance of a contract regarding property. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who failed to pay the remaining consideration by the contractually agreed cut-off date and the subsequent extended deadline, could maintain a suit for specific performance by blaming the respondent for failing to produce necessary documents. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligations. The Court emphasized that a party seeking specific performance must first prove their own bona fides, including presence at the stipulated time and place with the required funds, before alleging default by the other party. Finding that the petitioner failed to meet these obligations and noting the existence of concurrent findings by the lower courts against the petitioner, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that a party must stand on their own legs to enforce a contract.
- Must a party seeking specific performance prove their own readiness and willingness to perform before alleging default by the other party?
- Does a failure to pay the consideration amount by the agreed cut-off date and extended deadline preclude a suit for specific performance?
- Can a petitioner succeed in a suit for specific performance if they cannot demonstrate they were present with the required funds at the stipulated time and place?
ORDER
' GHULAM RABBANI, J.---Leave is sought to appeal against the judgment dated 7-8-2007 passed by a learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby the appeal of petitioner assailing dismissal of his suit for specific performance qua the suit property, was dismissed.
2. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment and the judgment passed by learned trial Court. Also, we have seen the evidence available before us. During the course of their oral submissions, it came to light that an amount of Rs,40,50,000 was to be paid by the petitioner as the remaining part of consideration by the cut off date viz. 15-9- 2002 in which he failed. On his request, time for payment was extended upto 23-12-2002, but the petitioner eventually made the payment on 3-1-2005 i,e,, two years after extended time. This reflects that the petitioner was not ready and prepared to pay the amount by the cut off date and even after the extended time, he admittedly failed to perform his part as per the contract. Learned counsel for petitioner took a plea that since the respondent was bound to show to him the documents'ready on the cut off date before the concerned officer of Defence Housing Authority which condition, the latter failed to fulfil, the petitioner could not be held responsible to have not performed his part of contract. We are not persuaded to accept this plea of learned counsel.
Petitioner has, in the first place, to stand on his own legs and to show his bona fides that on the stipulated date he was himself present before the concerned officer ready with money payable to the other side and that being so abiding by the terms and conditions of contract, found the seller absent. In this nothing was brought to our notice to lean on the side of petitioner. Admittedly, there are two concurrent findings going against the petitioner. That, being so, the petition fails.
3.
Cited by 5 cases
- Muhammad Zakir vs Muhammad Faisal 2022 SHC 78, 2022 MLD 738
- MUHAMMAD ZAKIR Versus MUHAMMAD FAISAL 2022 MLD 874
- Messrs TEE JAYS EXCLUSIVE (PVT.) LTD. through Managing Director and another vs MUHAMMAD NAVEED 2017 PLD Sindh 88
- ASIF ALI HASHMI through 4 Legal Heirs vs MUHAMMAD ARIF MIAN and 4 2015 PLJ Islamabad 330, 2015 PLD Islamabad 191
- Ghulam Muhammad vs Muhammad Hayat (Late) through Legal Heirs and others 2023 LHC 2222