Kinnaird College for Women, Lahore

Submitted by: Tahreem Sajjad

Course Title: Equity and Specific Relief Act

Post mid Assignment

Facts
The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Muhammad Anwar, and the defendants,
Muhammad Aslam over property. The plaintiff sued to request specific performance of the
property purchase and sale contract. The agreement in question was dated February 27, 1997,
and related to the sale of the real estate described in the complaint. The date of implementation
of the agreement was set for August 27, 1997. The agreed value for the property is Rs 5,70,000,
with a deposit of Rs 150,000 at the time of the agreement. The agreement states that time is of
the essence of the contract and states that if the seller's plaintiff fails to pay the remaining
amount, the agreement will be canceled, and the deposit will be forfeited to the seller. The
plaintiff claimed that the seller, Ghulam Muhammad, died before the execution date, which he
claimed prevented him from performing the contract. The plaintiff also stated that he contacted
the seller's legal heirs to request enforcement of the judgment, but they offered him a
replacement piece of land with a lower value. The plaintiff filed the suit without paying the
mandatory court fees, claiming that he was exempted by the order of the Federal Shariah Court,
even though the value of the assets for trial and court fees was Rs 5,70,000.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the contract of sale of the property,
since he had failed to comply with the stipulated performance date and the consequences of non-
performance as mentioned in the contract?

Rule

Section 12 and Section 55 of Specific Relief Act 1877

The contract in question expressly stated that time was an essential element of the contract. It
also clarified that if the plaintiff seller fails to pay the remaining consideration, the deal will be
canceled, and the deposit amount will be forfeited. - Case law stipulates that the plaintiff cannot
provide evidence other than the defense. The principle of time is an essential element of a
contract when clearly mentioned and it should be protected in contract law.

Application

Muhammad Anwar admitted that he could not settle the remaining consideration even on the
day of execution and even three months later. The plaintiff also falsely claimed that the vendor
died before the execution date. The evidence presented at trial, including the plaintiff's own
testimony and the testimony of witnesses, contradicts the plaintiff's arguments. This leads to a
situation where the plaintiff is at fault for not fulfilling his obligations because he did not fulfil
the correct part of the contract.

Analysis

Appeal was allowed. Plaintiff admitted that he couldn't arrange the remaining consideration
quantum indeed on the date of performance and indeed three months later and further he
dishonestly contended that he approached the legal heirs at law of the seller as he'd passed away
before the date of performance which was factually incorrect, and his own evidence as well as
the substantiation of his substantiations contradicted his pleadings. In the present case time was
the substance of the contract, and the consequence was to agree to the agreement. When fault
was with the vendee complainant he was not entitled for the optional relief in the shape of a
decree for specific performance. Evidence is not only the complainant himself contradicting his
pleadings, but his evidence also contradicts the station. It's admitted by the complainant vendee
that on the date of performance he was unfit to arrange the remaining consideration quantum and
it's admitted position that as per the agreement if the vendee was unfit to perform his part of
contract payment of remaining consideration quantum which was near about 70 of the agreed
quantum as near about 30 was paid as humorless plutocrat, thus, agreement was to be cancelled
and when the complainant has led substantiation beyond the evidence. It's clear and admitted
position on the record that the seller passed away on 17.2.1998 long after the date for
performance of the contract which was 27.08.1997 and the case contended that the seller passed
away before the date for performance isn't only wrong but dishonestly contended to show that it
was the defendants legal heirs at law of the seller who couldn't get the mutation of heritage in
their favor, thus, it was dereliction of the legal heirs at law of the seller/ defendants. To consider
the pleadings of the parties and the evidence of the complainant, as complainant was needed to
show that he was willing and ready to perform his part of contract on the target date and it was
dereliction of the seller/ defendant or his legal heirs at law due to which the performance couldn't
be materialized, thus, they were forced to file a suit for specific performance. Plaintiff admitted
that he couldn't arrange the remaining consideration quantum indeed on the date of performance
and indeed three months later and further dishonestly it's contended that complainant approached
the legal heirs at law of seller as he passed away before the date of performance which is
factually incorrect whereas his own pleadings as well as substantiation of his substantiations
contradict his pleading. In this case time was substance of contract, the consequence was to agree
with the agreement, but all the courts below have ignored this fact and further when fault was
with the vendee complainant he was not entitled for the optional relief in the shape of a decree
for specific performance. In this view of the matter, this appeal was allowed. The judgments and
rulings passed by the three fora below were set away. The result was that the suit filed by the
complainant replier stands dismissed with costs. The humorless plutocrat will be sequestered in
favor of the petitioners in agreement with the agreement. The remaining consideration quantum
deposited by the complainant/ decree holder under the orders of the court, with the trial court
was to be entered back by him, the case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellants
reported as "Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of
Revenue and others" (2014 SCMR 914), "Sardar Muhammad Naseem Khan v. Returning
Officer, PP-12 and others" (2015 SCMR 1698), "Binyameen and 3 others v. Chaudhry
Hakim and another" (1996 SCMR 336), "Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary and
5 others v. Malik Ibrahim and Sons and another" (2000 SCMR 1172) and "Sultan
Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others" (2010 SCMR 1630) supports
the version of the appellants that the plaintiff-respondent cannot lead evidence beyond the
pleadings and further the evidence led even negates the version of the plaintiff-respondent
pleaded through the plaint. Circumstances show that the suit was ordered about 13 times after
arriving at the agreement to vend, the complainant- replier paid the remaining consideration
quantum Rs 4,20,000/- after passing of the decree by the learned trial court dated 2.6.2010. In
these circumstances, the judgments and rulings passed by all the courts below ignoring the fact
that the terms of the agreement show that time was substance of the contract when it was
specifically mentioned the date for performance and its consequences for perpetration by the
complainant- vendee and it'll be cancelled, and humorless plutocrat will be sequestered.

Conclusion

Given the specific terms of the agreement, where time was explicitly considered the substance of
the contract and consequences for perpetration were easily defined and considering that the
complainant couldn't meet the quested date for performance, the Supreme Court of Pakistan
allowed the appeal. The judgments and rulings of the lower courts were set away, and the
complainant's suit for specific performance was dismissed with costs. The humorless plutocrat
was to be sequestered in favor of the petitioners. This case reinforces the significance of clinging
to the terms of a contract and upholding the principle that time can be considered the substance
of a contract when explicitly mentioned in the agreement.

References

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check