SHAMA ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LTD vs Malik GHULAM SARWAR And Other
This is an intra-court appeal directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the appellant's application for the grant of an ad-interim injunction in a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. The core legal question was whether the refusal of the ad-interim injunction was justified when the plaintiff-appellant showed unwillingness to deposit the balance of the sale consideration and instead offered to furnish security. The court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that in a suit for specific performance where an injunction is sought regarding the suit property, the court normally orders the deposit of the balance of the sale consideration to ascertain whether the plaintiff is factually ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. The key principle laid down is that a plaintiff seeking equitable relief such as an injunction in a specific performance suit must demonstrate readiness and willingness by depositing the balance consideration when so required by the court.
- Whether a plaintiff seeking an ad-interim injunction in a suit for specific performance can be required to deposit the balance of the sale consideration?
- Does the refusal to deposit the balance sale consideration justify the dismissal of an injunction application in a specific performance suit?
- What is the standard requirement for a plaintiff seeking equitable relief regarding a suit property under a sale agreement?
ORDER
1. AJMAL MIAN, J.--This is an appeal against an order dated 30-5-1988 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court m Suit No. 297 of 1988 upon C.MA. No. 2371 of 1988 dismissing the appellant's application for grant of ad---interim injunction in respect of the suit land, which has been filed by the appellant for specific performance of a sale agreement, dated 14th November, 1987 for land measuring 9.8 acres situated at Deh Joreji Tappo Darsano, Taluka and District Karachi East. The learned Single Judge while hearing the above application enquired from the appellant, whether he was willing to deposit the balance of the sale consideration m terms of the sale agreement, the appellant showed his unwillingness to deposit the balance of the sale consideration but stated that he was ready to furnish the security. The learned Single Judge dismissed the above application on the ground that the appellant was not willing to deposit the balance of the sale consideration. The appellant being' aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal: We have heard Mr. Atash Mirza, learned counsel for the appellant, who states that the suit has not been listed for final disposal and, therefore, the hearing of the above appeal may be deferred.
2. We have noticed from the diary that this is the third date of hearing for Katcha Peshi. In a suit for specific performance when appellant seeks an injunction in respect of the suit property, the Court normally order the deposit of the balance of the sale consideration in the Court in order to see, whether factually the plaintiff was ready and willing to Perform his part of the sale agreement in respect of which the performance is sought. The order under appeal seems to be in consonance with law and does not call for interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
Cited by 7 cases
- Dr. HASAN MAHFUZ JALISI vs KHAWAJA MOINUDDIN and 2 others 2006 PLJ Karachi 295
- Dr. HASAN MAHFUZ JALISI vs KHAWAJA MOINUDDIN and 2 otherss 2006 PLD Karachi 98
- Haji GHULAM RASOOL vs MIAN JAVAID AHMAD ZIA and another 2004 PLJ Lahore 315
- Haji GHULAM RASOOL vs Mian JAVED AHMED ZIA and anothers 2004 YLR 361
- FRIENDS ASSOCIATES (RECD.) Versus BINN BAK INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED 2003 PLD 17
- HAJI JEWANA vs NADIR ALI and others 1991 CLC 1505
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD HANIF and anothers 1990 PLD Lahore 82