ABDUL SATTAR vs Haji KHUSH,I MUHAMMAD and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had declined to grant relief in a dispute regarding the specific performance of an agreement to excavate earth. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner was entitled to specific performance after failing to act for a significant period following the execution of an agreement, and whether the respondent was justified in selling the property to third parties. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on two grounds: first, it was barred by limitation due to a one-day delay without an application for condonation; second, on merits, the Court found the High Court's order unexceptionable. The Court held that a party cannot bind another to an agreement for an indefinite period. It established the principle that where no specific limitation is fixed, a party seeking specific performance must act reasonably and initiate proceedings within a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the petitioner would not suffer irreparable loss, as monetary remedies, including the recovery of paid amounts and potential damages, remained available.
- Is a party entitled to specific performance of an agreement if they fail to act within a reasonable time?
- Can a party bind another to a contract for an indefinite period?
- Does the absence of a fixed limitation period in an agreement relieve a party from the duty to act reasonably?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable if filed beyond the limitation period without an application for condonation of delay?
ORDER
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---The petition is barred by one day. No application has been moved for condonation of delay.
2. Even on merits, the order of the High Court is unexceptionable as reflected in para.3 thereof which reads thus:-- "3. The agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No,1 on 29-7-1978 but no earth was excavated by the petitioner from this land and then a revised agreement was signed on 31-5-1982 and still for a long period the petitioner failed to excavate the earth and the respondent sold the property after 9 years of the amended agreement to respondents 2 to 4.
Sufficient long period was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not supposed to bound down the other party for indefinite period. Under the law, he could get the agreement specifically performed within a period of three years and even if no limitation period was fixed, the petitioner was supposed to act reasonably and get the agreement performed within the reasonable time.
The agreement also did not estop respondent No,1 from selling the property to anybody else. In these circumstances, the petitioner has failed to show that the balance of convenience lies in his favour. There will also be no irreparable loss to the petitioner as he has paid a specific amount to respondent No,1 and in case he fails to get possession of the land under the agreement, he will be entitled to get his amount back from respondent No,1 and in case he is able to prove before the trial Court that respondent No,1 is a party at fault then he, if so advised, may also be able to claim the damages."
3. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed being barred by time and leave declined.