ATTA MUHAMMAD and 2 others vs HAKIM ALI and 3 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendants against a High Court judgment that dismissed their Civil Revision in a suit for specific performance. The petitioners, who were second vendees, contended that the discretionary relief of specific performance should not have been granted because the respondents could be adequately compensated through monetary damages, as suggested by the pleadings and the agreement in question. The Supreme Court, having previously settled other issues regarding the parties' rights in earlier litigation, examined this sole remaining contention. The Court held that the discretion to grant specific performance was exercised correctly by the lower courts. It further observed that the High Court had addressed the argument regarding monetary compensation with adequate reasoning, which did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, affirming the lower court's decision to grant specific performance.
- Can the discretionary relief of specific performance be denied solely on the ground that the plaintiff could be adequately compensated by money?
- Does a High Court's reasoned dismissal of an argument regarding monetary compensation in a specific performance suit warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendant side in a suit for specific performance; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Revision.
2. ' The learned counsel in the very outset stated that all other questions relating to the rights of the respective parties--the petitioners side are the second Vendees, having been settled by the Supreme Court in an earlier litigation, the petitioners have only one point to urge in support of this petition. The Supreme Court judgment referred by the learned counsel is 'Hakim Ali and another v.
3. Atta Muhammad and others 1981 SCMR 993.
4. The point now urged is that according to pleadings of the respondents side as also other material on record including averments in the agreement relied upon from the respondents side, they could be compensated by payment of money, therefore, the discretionary relief for specific performance should not have been allowed.
5. ' After hearing him, at some length, on this question we feel that the discretion has rightly been exercised in favour of the plaintiff side and in any case the High Court having noticed this argument disposed it of with adequate reasons which do not suffer from any such infirmity so as to invoke interference by this Court. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.