MUHAMMAD HANIF and another vs THE STATE and another
The matter concerns a dispute over the possession of a shop, originating from a suit filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 by the respondent, Abdul Majeed, based on an alleged agreement of sale dated 31-5-1967. The trial court dismissed the suit in 1980. Subsequently, the respondent filed a separate suit for specific performance of the same agreement, which remains pending. The petitioners, who acquired a share in the property from the original vendor, challenged the District Court's revisional judgment that had reversed the trial court's dismissal of the Section 9 suit. The core legal question was whether a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was legally sustainable when the respondent had already initiated a subsequent suit for specific performance based on title. The Supreme Court, noting the pendency of the specific performance suit, stayed the execution of the decree dated 25-6-1989, effectively preserving the petitioners' possession of the disputed shop pending further adjudication. The court emphasized that a party failing to secure relief under Section 9 is not barred from pursuing a suit based on title.
- Does the filing of a suit for specific performance based on title preclude the continuation of a revision petition arising from a suit filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- Is a plaintiff who fails to obtain relief under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 barred from subsequently filing a suit for specific performance and recovery of possession based on title?
- Section 9, Specific Relief Act 1877
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, ACTG. C.J.---On the basis of agreement of sale dated 31-5-1967 allegedly executed by Nazir Ahmad, the transferee of the property, the respondent on 26-3-1975 filed a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession of the shop alleging that though the possession of the said shop had been delivered to him by the said vendor under the said agreement of sale but he was illegally dispossessed within six months from the date of filing of the said suit. It was contested by Nazir Ahmad and dismissed through judgment dated 5-1-1980 by the trial Court.
2. A revision petition was filed against this judgment by Nazir Ahmad in which the petitioners were impleaded as respondents they having alleged that subsequently Nazir Ahmad transferred 1/2 share in the shop to them through registered sale-deed. The petitioner is the brother of Nazir Ahmad.
3. On the other hand, on 25-9-1980, the respondent Abdul Majeed filed suit for specific performance of the said agreement of sale in which a decree was also prayed for, for the delivery of possession of the property to him on the basis of title after the execution of sale-deed, therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no legal justification for pursuing the remedy in revision petition under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, for it is provided in law that in a case, the plaintiff fails to get relief under section 9 of the Act, he was not debarred from filing suit on the basis of title and recovery of possession of the property and he having filed the said suit, interference made by the District Court under section 115, C.P.C. Through judgment, dated 5-1-1980 by decreeing the suit was neither legally proper nor sustainable in law, therefore, Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner if viewed from this angle was maintainable as in that case, the judgment of the District Court in revision would be without lawful authority. It has been brought to our notice that the said suit for specific performance is still pending in which the present petitioner has also been impleaded as one of the defendants. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Late Mst. Majeedan through Legal Heirs and another v. Late Muhammad Naseem through Legal Heirs and another (2001 SCM R 345).
5. In the meantime, execution of decree, dated 25-6-1989 shall remain stayed in that possession of the petitioner over the shop in dispute shall not be disturbed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Amjad Khan vs The State 2022 MLD 520
- MUHAMMAD TARIQ and 2 others vs The STATE and another 2015 P Cr. L J 1326