KHALID HUSSAIN Versus ABDUL KHALIQ

ORDER

1. This is an application for injunction in a suit filed by the plaintiff with respect to the plot in suit, which was owned by him. Facts giving rise to the case of the plaintiff are given in paras. 2 and 3 of the plaint which read as under:‑

2. "The defendant No.2 represented to the plaintiff that defendant No.l was prepared to purchase the said plots for a total sum of Rs.9,00,000 and the plaintiff authorised him to arrange for 30$ advance which was duly paid to the plaintiff, as can be seen from Annexures "B" and "B‑1".

3. "That defendant No.2 represented to the plaintiff that if the plaintiff executed the Agreement and transfer documents, leaving the Purchase Price and other details blank with original papers and give a letter of authority to him, he would undertake not to fill in the blanks and not to take any steps at all to effect transfer of the said plots unless and until the said agreed amount of Rs.900,000 was paid to the plaintiff by defendant No.l which representations turned out to be false and fraudulent because defendant No.l paid only a total of ds.6,16,962.50 plus dues and commissions of Rs.78,000 and whilst the plaintiff was still waiting to receive the balance of As.2,05,037 in collusion, without the knowledge of the plaintiff and in breach of the said undertakings and without any authority at all from the plaintiff filled in the blanks and filed the papers for transfer to the name of defendant No.l, copies of the said documents are annexed hereto and respectively marked C, C‑1, C‑2, C‑3, C‑4 and C‑5.

4. The plaintiff has therefore prayed as follows:‑

5. "It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court shall be pleased to:‑

6. Declare that defendant No.l is not entitled to transfer of plots No.10 and 13 in Zulfiqar Street No.4 and 3 Phase, 8, Defence Housing Authority to his name and defendant No.2, has no authority to act on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant No.3, is not liable to effect transfer to defendant No.l unless the plaintiff has been paid the balance of the said purchase price of Rs.2,05,037.

7. To grant an injunction, restraining the defendants from taking any steps to effect transfer of the said plots until the said balance of purchase price has been paid to the plaintiff.

(3) Ad interim Injunction pending disposal of this suit. (4) Any other relief deemed proper.

8. The contention of Mr. Ali Ahmad Tariq, the counsel for the defendant No.l was that the plaintiff was not entitled to a negative declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. He therefore pointed out that according to the plaintiff himself all that to which he was entitled was the balance of the sale consideration and nothing more, hence the plaintiff was not able to show that he would suffer irreparable loss and as such he was not entitled to the relief of interim injunction. As against this Mr. Samiuddin Sami contended that the allegations in the plaint which have to be taken as true show that the full consideration not having been paid the plaintiff had not completed the sale documents and as such the sale had not been effected and title and interest of the plaintiff in the property had not extinguished and has not passed on to the defendant as yet. He, therefore, was entitled to a declaration that he continues to be the owner of this plot.

9. He submitted that even if he was not considered entitled to an interim injunction, the Court can order the defendant to furnish security for the payment of the balance of sale price specially in view of the fact that the defendant was residing outside Pakistan and if he was allowed to dispose of these plots which he mala fidely intended to, he would not be left with any property in Pakistan and thus the recovery of the decretal amount, if the decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff will be delayed and or defeated. Mr. Arbad Akhtar Ali stated that on the basis of the documents Plot No.10 was mutated by the Defence Housing Authority in favour of defendant No.l while the question of transfer of Plot No.13 is still pending on account of this suit. It may be pointed out that the discretion to grant an appropriate equitable relief on the facts and circumstances of each case always rests in the Courts and in the peculiar circumstances of this case I feel that even though an injunction cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiff still some sort of equitable relief ought to be granted to him.

10. I, therefore, direct that the defendant No.l shall furnish security in the sum of Rs.2,05,037 within one month from today, for the decree, if any passed in this suit. CMA No.6011 of 1988 stands disposed of accordingly. Till such security is furnished the defendant No.l shall not dispose of this plot.

11. H.B.T./K‑113/K Order accordingly.